New article by Dr. Philips debunks "gateway" myth

[DrMA]

«The present analysis examines what evidence and research strategies would be needed to empirically detect such a gateway effect, if there were one, explaining key methodological concepts including causation and confounding, examining the logic of the claim, identifying potentially useful data, and debunking common fallacies on both sides of the argument, as well as presenting an extended example of proper empirical testing. The analysis demonstrates that none of the empirical studies to date that are purported to show a gateway effect from tobacco harm reduction products actually does so.»

IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would) | HTML

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

PDF downloaded and saved, 26 pages I don't have time to read now. Two great papers on the same day that hopefully will give the glANTZ crowd fits.

 

[caramel]

If the antz know of someone that was introduced to smoking via nicotine patches, please come forward now with the evidence.

 

[AndriaD]

Yeah, it's pretty hard going, but I'm trying -- some of it I may never really understand, not having a collitch edification, but really loving what he's saying as for the junk science we've seen perpetrated already.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

Yeah, it's pretty hard going, but I'm trying -- some of it I may never really understand, not having a collitch edification, but really loving what he's saying as for the junk science we've seen perpetrated already.

Andria

Less than one year of college for me. Not easy keeping up with this sub forum. Need to look up words, constantly. Misunderstand/misread often. Enjoying it, though.

 

[AndriaD]

Oh, I understand the words; it's the labored construction reminiscent of 19th century literature that causes me to have to re-read some sentences 3-5 times to try and winkle out what's actually being said. I feel like I'm reading Tolstoy/Dostoevskey.

I suppose that's inevitable when discussing something like methodology.

Andria

 

[a wandering soul]

i just dont see how someone who hadn't smoked.. and had only vaped.. could ever want to choose tobacco over e-juice?

 

[nicnik]

Oh, I understand the words; it's the labored construction reminiscent of 19th century literature that causes me to have to re-read some sentences 3-5 times to try and winkle out what's actually being said. I feel like I'm reading Tolstoy/Dostoevskey.

I suppose that's inevitable when discussing something like methodology.

Andria

I'm constantly having to re-read sentences and paragraphs. Not only in the science stuff, but it brings out the worst in my reading problems. I try to be quicker at times, but then I often misunderstand.

It helps me that at it's core, and at every level, the ANTZ logic just doesn't hold up, and it is easy to see. I might cut down on trying to read the studies, etc. Edit to add: And the legal stuff, especially legislation and proposed legislation.

 

[EBates]

OMG! I just regained consciousness. Made it all the way to Para 2.8 before I lapsed into a coma. I'll try again after I have a vape and a beer.

 

[nicnik]

OMG! I just regained consciousness. Made it all the way to Para 2.8 before I lapsed into a coma. I'll try again after I have a vape and a beer.

Double your nic %

 

[somdcomputerguy]

i just dont see how someone who hadn't smoked.. and had only vaped.. could ever want to choose tobacco over e-juice?

I liked that post, but it seems there's no like like like like like like button.. This is a question that has been on my mind since I first became aware of it. I just can't even begin to understand why anyone, ANTZ or whatever, would even think such a statement could be plausibly made..

 

[philoshop]

The paper is 'calling out' the agenda-driven conjecturists for what they are.
It's not really necessary to understand everything that Philips is saying, because most of the 'conjecturists' won't either.
It's the 'calling out' part that is important because the current (vaping stance) fence-sitters in the scientific community now have a really good reason to look more closely at the issue...

 

[Kent C]

Either he's "intellectualizing" or it's just a case of statistical mumbo jumbo. Perhaps a little of both

This may help:

Spurious relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suppose there is found to be a correlation between A and B. Aside from coincidence, there are three possible relationships:
Where A is present, B is observed. (A causes B.)
Where B is present, A is observed. (B causes A.)
OR
Where C is present, both A and B are observed. (C causes both A and B.)

In the last case there is a spurious relationship between A and B. In a regression model where A is regressed on B but C is actually the true causal factor for A, this misleading choice of independent variable (B instead of C) is called specification error.
-----

Where A is say, smoking and B is vaping and C is a preference for nicotine.

ANTZ say B leads to A. Carl says it could be just the opposite, that A leads to B .....OR there could be no correlation between the two at all, in that they may be both a manifestation of C without any direct correlation between A and B.

Most of the ANTZ studies wouldn't even acknowledge C and yet none of their studies are able to substantiate their proposed idea that B (vaping) leads to A (smoking).

eg. The increase in teen vaping and the decrease in teen smoking (something the ANTZ don't consider) means that there is likely a C (need of nic) or a D (need to experiment) or E (fill in the blank) :- )

Of course there's more to it than that but that's the basic 'mechanics' of the overuse of mumbo jumbo terminology of statistics. lol... Perhaps deemed necessary to be taken seriously by others who use the same ruse. Even though that may sound like a criticism, it is not.

 

[DC2]

Oh, I understand the words; it's the labored construction reminiscent of 19th century literature that causes me to have to re-read some sentences 3-5 times to try and winkle out what's actually being said. I feel like I'm reading Tolstoy/Dostoevskey

Of all the classes I took in college, philosophy was the hardest.
And since I minored in it, I had many of them.

Physics (my other minor) was easy in comparison.

I could read and understand my physics textbooks even while stoned.
But my philosophy material was painful, with or without the aid of drugs.

 

[AndriaD]

Of all the classes I took in college, philosophy was the hardest.
And since I minored in it, I had many of them.

Physics (my other minor) was easy in comparison.

I could read and understand my physics textbooks even while stoned.
But my philosophy material was painful, with or without the aid of drugs.

I've always found the concepts of physics utterly enthralling, but I have such poor math comprehension and skills that just as soon as they go from concepts to formulas, I am completely lost -- I can deal with the concepts in *words* -- but start talking about them in numbers or their formulaic stand-ins, and I'm gone, utterly lost at sea -- my verbal comprehensions are post-post-secondary, my math skills not much past long division. I did *ok* in algebra, Bs and Cs, so at least, in most cases, I know how to take a particular problem and turn it into an equation which then can be solved... but when they start mixing distance, time, and liquid or solid measures in the same equation, whoosh, it's so far over my head I can't even see it. And that thing in geometry about figuring out the height of something by the angle of its shadow... or some such goobledegook that I could not figure out WHAT they were talking about (if you don't even understand the equation, how the heck are you supposed to solve it?)... fuhgeddaboutit! My brain will not go there. And exponents? Anything past 'cubed'... I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW!

I've noticed similar problems as you describe in some philosophical writing, but not all -- I think it's really down to the skill of the writer in expressing his meaning -- perhaps his skills were the opposite of my own! Or if the writer was living in the 19th century AND was writing philosophy... well nobody could understand THAT mess! 19th century sentences went on for entire paragraphs!

Andria

 

[DrMA]

Suppose there is found to be a correlation between A and B. Aside from coincidence, there are three possible relationships:
Where A is present, B is observed. (A causes B.)
Where B is present, A is observed. (B causes A.)
OR
Where C is present, both A and B are observed. (C causes both A and B.)

Missed one very relevant case, where A and B are correlated simply by chance, and there's no plausible functional relationship between them

Spurious Correlations

 

[Kent C]

Missed one very relevant case, where A and B are correlated simply by chance, and there's no plausible functional relationship between them

Spurious Correlations

Pretty sure that's what's meant by the 'limiter' "Aside from coincidence..." :- )