Nature.com: Electronic cigarettes ‘don’t aid quitting’, study says

[MrsAngelD]

nature com/news/electronic-cigarettes-don-t-aid-quitting-study-says-1.14918

The controversy over electronic cigarettes has been reignited today with the publication of a study claiming that they do not help smokers to quit their habit.

Whether or not ‘e-cigarettes’ are an effective aid in the cessation of smoking has become a major issue for the rapidly growing industry that produces the devices, and for the tobacco researchers struggling to assess their impact. There is widespread agreement that inhaling from an e-cigarette, where a heating element vapourizes a liquid containing nicotine, is not as harmful as smoking a conventional cigarette, and proponents say that the products could save millions of lives. But some researchers and tobacco-control activists fear that the devices could make tobacco use seem socially acceptable again and may not assist people in actually reducing their addiction.

<...>

 

[Maurice Pudlo]

I'm not even sure what to say, except…e-cigarettes very much helped me quit.

Judging by the many counters on this forum I'd say they have helped quite a few other people quit too.

I'm about to step down from 6-8 mg/ml to 3-4 mg/ml. I can't do that with any other nicotine replacement treatment.

I've done the whole chantix thing, cold turkey, patches, gum, you name it. This has worked for me, and to me that's what counts.

Maurice

 

[Frenchfry1942]

Is their a place to write a response?

 

[csantiago1911]

Hmmm... well I must be an anomaly then... I am over 90 days tobacco free and vaping is how I quit. Prior to vaping, I used tobacco for over 30 years and was never able to go over 2 weeks without it... with MANY failed attempts at quitting during my 30 year bondage to BT. Vaping was the easiest (and only successful) attempt at quitting I have ever tried... I just started vaping, and stopped using tobacco that day.

 

[sonicdsl]

Is their a place to write a response?

At the bottom of the article is the comments section.

 

[humpstyles]

::looks at own post signature counter::

derp derp derp.

 

[MorpheusPA]

Is this a typo? "followed 949 people who detailed their smoking habits though an online survey, and found that 88 of those who had used e-cigarettes were no more likely to have quit or reduced their smoking after a year than other smokers. “

Um, 88 of 949 is a 91% success rate. Which is phenomenal.

Even if, theoretically, they meant 898, that's a 5.5% success rate...which is competitive with anything the pharmaceutical industry can offer (and cheaper and doesn't make me hang myself).

So I'm not exactly sure what the heck they're talking about.

 

[MorpheusPA]

And the link to the actual publication is broken in the Nature article. Brilliant, geniuses, I can't even check your data.

I'd sign up to comment but I can't see bothering with blatant stupidity and an inability to proofread.

 

[rothenbj]

Hmmm... well I must be an anomaly then... I am over 90 days tobacco free and vaping is how I quit. Prior to vaping, I used tobacco for over 30 years and was never able to go over 2 weeks without it... with MANY failed attempts at quitting during my 30 year bondage to BT. Vaping was the easiest (and only successful) attempt at quitting I have ever tried... I just started vaping, and stopped using tobacco that day.

We're all just anecdotes, didn't you know. It takes someone to ask me to find out that nearly 5 years ago I smoked 2-3 PAD and now over 4 years ago I had my last drag on a cigarette and I don't even get the urge anymore. However, no one asks.

 

[Bernard Marx]

Maybe part of the problem with these reports is that there are a lot more lazy, deadline-focused journalists than there are real factual studies and so the same misinformation keeps getting passed along in a slightly different form over and over again until it really does become true in people's minds. Too bad instead of calling them e-cigarettes they didn't call them anti-cigarettes.

 

[rothenbj]

"The conclusions the authors of the paper draw are “just not related in any way to the study finding", says Hajek."

Now doesn't that sound familiar to other comments coming out of Slantz's and his underlings research. The whole department should be charged with research malpractice.

 

[rothenbj]

I spent the time to register-

I'm one of the anecdotes that nobody wants to include in these bogus studies, particularly those coming out of UCSF.

"I smoked 43c years, 2-3 PAD until I used my first e cig almost 5 years ago. I have not had a drag on a cigarette for 4 years 1 month and 10 days, to be exact. UCSF and others are drawing conclusion from studies where the facts are not in evidence.

If vaping ever reaches its full potential to reduce the death toll of cigarettes, it will be despite the best efforts of our researchers, lawmakers and tobacco control.particularly the prohibitionists that work under Stan Glantz at UCSF.

 

[DrMA]

Here is the junk science that Stan Shat was threatening will be released in the comments debate over at Counterfactual. Unsurprisingly, Slantz and his team pushed the same flawed logic and misinterpretation of survey results as their other JAMA paper about the kids. And JAMA was only too quick to oblige BP and publish this junk as well.

In a way I am relieved. I thought they might come up with something that was not so clearly and overtly fraudulent.

 

[Pyxus]

Here is the junk science that Stan Shat was threatening will be released in the comments debate over at Counterfactual. Unsurprisingly, Slantz and his team pushed the same flawed logic and misinterpretation of survey results as their other JAMA paper about the kids. And JAMA was only too quick to oblige BP and publish this junk as well.

Authors at UCSF get their paychecks from Tobacco Control Research Centers... what would happen to them if a new device/method helped smokers quit en masse?
Also, overstated conclusions are common practice in the ever growing field of epidemiology - which seems immune to fraud accusations.... please, don't assimilate this to *real* scientific research!

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

[DrMA]

I couldn't possibly offer a more eloquent critique than Dr. Siegel: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-study-on-electronic-cigarettes-by.html

But here is my humble interpretation of the same JAMA results that were twisted by the Slantz gang:

WHEREAS the authors themselves report that of the 88 e-cigarette "users," only 8.0% reported that they were trying to quit at the beginning of the study
And WHEREAS 10.2% of the 88 did actually quit after one year
THEREFORE ecigarette use is demonstrated to help smokers quit, even those smokers who otherwise have no intention of quitting and are unwilling to undertake any effort in that direction (I myself was one of those)

This article should be hailed as a resounding confirmation that vaping is the most effective tobacco cessation aid. The PR should read: "vaping is 127.5% effective at getting smokers to quit" because only 8% wanted to and 10.2% actually did. By comparison only 5% of smokers who want to quit are actually able to with traditional NRT. Compare that to 127.5% success for vaping and we've got a clear winner!