New study on exposure to 2nd hand vapor

[granolaboy]

Wait a minute, I'm led to understand that nicotine cures Alzheimer's. If everyone is constantly inhaling nicotine why do people still get Alzheimer's?

Degenerative brain diseases, like parkinson's, M.S., and alzheimer's, are primarily caused by diet. Lack of iodine, omega-3 fats, and essential B vitamins makes your brain shrink, pure and simple.

So take some supplements or pay the price when you get older.

Don't believe me?

 

[Kent C]

Good illustration, Kent. That applies to a reasonable sample size, which, in most statistical theory is usually considered to be above N=20.

Otherwise, I'm saying that the use of GM and GSD is widely practiced for data representing concentrations, such is the case for this article. However, there's no way to quantify the shape of the distribution underlying 5 samples. Basically, no reliable statistics can be generated from 5 samples whether one uses GM, arithmetic means or anything else for that matter.

Thanks. I can see how it might be applicable in such as distribution as this, eg.:

But with 5 - with 2 or 3 right-skewed and the others way off to the left. There simply isn't any 'average', 'mean' regardless of the math, that would give any "important" data. It would be better just stating what the 5 data sets were and let the reader figure it out. I'm guessing at least 2 data sets were way below that of the constant, which really indicates to me - IF they assign a mean - that the methodology was screwed to begin with - OR... again - a desired outcome was decided upon before any testing at all.

 

[DrMA]

I'm guessing they did test many more vaping houses, but decided to throw out the data that did not fit some "performance criteria" . I see no reason why they'd have 24/25 houses in the smoking and non-smoking groups and only 5 for vaping. I think it's pretty safe to assume they did measure ~20 vaping houses and only reported the 5 that told the proper story.

 

[Kent C]

I'm guessing they did test many more vaping houses, but decided to throw out the data that did not fit some "performance criteria" . I see no reason why they'd have 24/25 houses in the smoking and non-smoking groups and only 5 for vaping. I think it's pretty safe to assume they did measure ~20 vaping houses and only reported the 5 that told the proper story.

Ah... The inner mean (also called the trimmed mean). That is something that the FDA could have done with the one deg carto. but Noooooo it was too 'important' for their anti-freeze line.

 

[Rickajho]

I'm guessing they did test many more vaping houses, but decided to throw out the data that did not fit some "performance criteria" . I see no reason why they'd have 24/25 houses in the smoking and non-smoking groups and only 5 for vaping. I think it's pretty safe to assume they did measure ~20 vaping houses and only reported the 5 that told the proper story.

And only those households that had a pool boy smoking down wind of an open window.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The study's abstract also never mentioned if the 5 e-cig users (whose homes and family members were tested) also smoked cigarettes, nor did it mention if the 5 e-cig users vaped along with smokers at outdoor smoking areas (if they couldn't vape in their workplace or public places).

Anyone know if Spain has banned vaping in workplaces?

Regardless, I'm not wasting money to buy the junk study behind the paywall.

 

[Kent C]

The study's abstract also never mentioned if the 5 e-cig users (whose homes and family members were tested) also smoked cigarettes, nor did it mention if the 5 e-cig users vaped along with smokers at outdoor smoking areas (if they couldn't vape in their workplace or public places).

Anyone know if Spain has banned vaping in workplaces?

Regardless, I'm not wasting money to buy the junk study behind the paywall.

And this is exactly what has been wrong with at least 2 earlier studies where there is no 'clean' constant with which to compare and where the only significance and what makes the study 'informative' is missing.