New Meta Analysis contradicts Glantz' junk studies and claims about vaping

[Bill Godshall]

New meta-analysis of 26 studies contradicts Glantz’ junk studies and claims, finds:

- cigarette smoking increases probability of vaping exponentially

- current smokers were nearly 15 times more likely to currently vape (than never smokers and exsmokers combined)

- teen smokers were 5 times more likely to vape than adult smokers (39% v 7.5%)

- current smokers were 16 times more likely to ever use an e-cigarette (than never smokers and exsmokers combined), and

- ever smokers were 9.5 times more likely than never smokers to ever use an e-cigarette

Cigarette Smoking and Electronic Cigarettes Use: A Meta-Analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

MDPI Open Access Journals Platform

Although this study didn't evaluate smoking cessation among vapers (or among one time e-cig experimenters, like most studies that Glantz included in his junk meta analsis), it documents that smokers are exponentially more likely than nonsmokers to vape (and to experiment with vaping), and that the smokers and exsmokers account for the overwhelming majority of vapers (and vaping experimenters).

 

[AndriaD]

Although this study didn't evaluate smoking cessation among vapers (or among one time e-cig experimenters, like most studies that Glantz' included in his junk meta analsis), it documents that smokers are exponentially more likely than nonsmokers to vape (and to experiment with vaping), and that the smokers and exsmokers account for the overwhelming majority of vapers (and vaping experimenters).

So it would seem that vaping is doing *exactly* what its inventor wanted it to do: give smokers a safer alternative.

Andria

 

[bobwho77]

New meta-analysis of 26 studies contradicts Glantz’ junk studies and claims, finds:

- cigarette smoking increases probability of vaping exponentially

- current smokers were nearly 15 times more likely to currently vape (than never smokers and exsmokers combined)

- teen smokers were 5 times more likely to vape than adult smokers (39% v 7.5%)

- current smokers were 16 times more likely to ever use an e-cigarette (than never smokers and exsmokers combined), and

- ever smokers were 9.5 times more likely than never smokers to ever use an e-cigarette

Cigarette Smoking and Electronic Cigarettes Use: A Meta-Analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

MDPI Open Access Journals Platform

Although this study didn't evaluate smoking cessation among vapers (or among one time e-cig experimenters, like most studies that Glantz' included in his junk meta analsis), it documents that smokers are exponentially more likely than nonsmokers to vape (and to experiment with vaping), and that the smokers and exsmokers account for the overwhelming majority of vapers (and vaping experimenters).

Bill, do you ever get the urge to smack these fools upside the head?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Bill, do you ever get the urge to smack these fools upside the head?

No. I just want them to be held accountable for knowingly and intentionally deceiving the public about lifesaving vapor products, which would include news stories exposing their egregious actions, no more federal funding for them, and would probably probably result in them being fired (which are more effective and responsible punishments than a smack on the head).

 

[Jman8]

No. I just want them to be held accountable for knowingly and intentionally deceiving the public about lifesaving vapor products, which would include news stories exposing their egregious actions, no more federal funding for them, and would probably probably result in them being fired (which are more effective and responsible punishments than a smack on the head).

I think while they are being fired, a smack on the head would be appropriate. Perhaps just a playful love tap to the forehead.

 

[AndriaD]

I think while they are being fired, a smack on the head would be appropriate. Perhaps just a playful love tap to the forehead.

I'd prefer a playful tap with a baseball bat... studded with 10-penny nails. THEN fire them, so they have no health coverage.

Andria

 

[bobwho77]

I'd prefer a playful tap with a baseball bat... studded with 10-penny nails. THEN fire them, so they have no health coverage.

Andria[/QU

OUCH!

 

[AndriaD]

OUCH!

It's just what they deserve, the desk murderers. Lying, greedy, control-freak puritan fascist azzhats.

Andria

 

[sofarsogood]

It's obvious to me now that in the public health field it is acceptable to lie if that's what is necessary to get the public to behave as the public health official thinks best.

I'm in Michigan so I hear a lot about the Flint, Michigan water crisis. The way the story is covered you might conclude that every person every where in the city who has taken a sip of that water is permanently brain damanged and the city should be evacuated and raised to the ground. There is some actual risk to some actual people but what ever that is we aren't hearing about it. The media is having to much fun over doing the story interviewing alarmists with agendas that go far beyond mere public safety.

 

[skoony]

It's obvious to me now that in the public health field it is acceptable to lie if that's what is necessary to get the public to behave as the public health official thinks best.

I'm in Michigan so I hear a lot about the Flint, Michigan water crisis. The way the story is covered you might conclude that every person every where in the city who has taken a sip of that water is permanently brain damanged and the city should be evacuated and raised to the ground. There is some actual risk to some actual people but what ever that is we aren't hearing about it. The media is having to much fun over doing the story interviewing alarmists with agendas that go far beyond mere public safety.

Not to drift to far off subject but, I am in Minnesota and I cannot find any reference
concerning the actual amount of lead found in the water or how and why it would
affect those that are drinking the water. There is absolutely no background info.
As close as the stories get is mentioning in a offhand way the chillin' have higher
than normal amounts of lead in their systems. Hello! How high is it? Is it a dangerous
amount?
regards
Mike

 

[englishmick]

New meta-analysis of 26 studies contradicts Glantz’ junk studies and claims, finds:

- cigarette smoking increases probability of vaping exponentially

- current smokers were nearly 15 times more likely to currently vape (than never smokers and exsmokers combined)

- teen smokers were 5 times more likely to vape than adult smokers (39% v 7.5%)

- current smokers were 16 times more likely to ever use an e-cigarette (than never smokers and exsmokers combined), and

- ever smokers were 9.5 times more likely than never smokers to ever use an e-cigarette

Cigarette Smoking and Electronic Cigarettes Use: A Meta-Analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

MDPI Open Access Journals Platform

Although this study didn't evaluate smoking cessation among vapers (or among one time e-cig experimenters, like most studies that Glantz included in his junk meta analsis), it documents that smokers are exponentially more likely than nonsmokers to vape (and to experiment with vaping), and that the smokers and exsmokers account for the overwhelming majority of vapers (and vaping experimenters).

Hey Bill. You're a lot more plugged into what's going on in the media than me. I get the impression that there's an increasing amount of pushback from the scientific establishment, and even the media, against the flood of junk studies that have been coming out. It seems like the quality of the anti-vaping material is getting lower and more clearly absurd lately, as well as there being more of it. Like maybe they have gone too far and are creating a reaction.

Do you reckon that's happening? I just see bits and pieces of the picture so I'm not sure.

 

[englishmick]

Not to drift to far off subject but, I am in Minnesota and I cannot find any reference
concerning the actual amount of lead found in the water or how and why it would
affect those that are drinking the water. There is absolutely no background info.
As close as the stories get is mentioning in a offhand way the chillin' have higher
than normal amounts of lead in their systems. Hello! How high is it? Is it a dangerous
amount?
regards
Mike

I read something that included numbers yesterday. Don't remember much of the detail. The one figure that stuck in my memory was that around 5% of children who had been tested had 3 or more times the blood level of lead than the number generally considered by doctors as requiring intervention. A handful had far higher levels. They also said it would be a long time before they understood in detail how many people had been effected and to what degree, so any conclusions drawn today were highly preliminary. Not all of the coverage has been of the apocalyptic variety. I haven't seen too much of that myself. A lot of the coverage has been the type of fluff you talked about above.

It does take a lot of effort to get useful information from our media sources, as we've seen clearly in the case of vaping.

 

[skoony]

@englishmick
It might be just me but, my impression is that there are more pro-vaping
stories than before. Some are actually very good and do not have all the
usual caveats such as the we don't know this or that and need future
studying junk and bad stuff has been found tripe.
On the other hand for every good story there seems to be a flurry of the
regular chunk science news. Often the stories are just rehashes of studies
already debunked and posted as brand new news.
One thing is for sure. For almost two years or more since I have become
more active in promoting vaping by commenting when allowed to anti-
vaping news stories on the net the comments are invariably 95% pro-
vaping. This percentage may actually be to low. Someone somewhere
has to have noticed this too. If the anti-homogenized milk community
can get their point across why on Earth are we being ignored to the extent
we are.( I know the answers it's a rhetorical question.)

Mike

 

[DC2]

No. I just want them to be held accountable for knowingly and intentionally deceiving the public about lifesaving vapor products, which would include news stories exposing their egregious actions, no more federal funding for them, and would probably probably result in them being fired (which are more effective and responsible punishments than a smack on the head).

Perhaps, but somewhat less satisfying...

Although it does depend on what is meant by "being held accountable" really...
I could envision many ways they could be held accountable that would satisfy me...

Perhaps even more so than a smack on the head.

 

[nicnik]

Perhaps, but somewhat less satisfying...

Although it does depend on what is meant by "being held accountable" really...
I could envision many ways they could be held accountable that would satisfy me...

Perhaps even more so than a smack on the head.

Most satisfying for me would be having their lying exposed, and that their fraud and the damage it's caused become widely known.

 

[DC2]

Most satisfying for me would be having their lying exposed, and that their fraud and the damage it's caused become widely known.

That's the bare minimum that would satisfy me.

 

[nicnik]

That's the bare minimum that would satisfy me.

For me, too, I guess, but in all honesty, I'd probably get more satisfaction from the resulting prison sentences. I guess I'm trying to convince myself to keep my eye on what's most important - that the misinformation be thoroughly reversed.