PBS Radio inteview of AVA's Greg Conley & Stanton Glantz on his "Study"
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
GlATNZ's meta-study claims that c-cigs reduce quitting? 
Hey Stan: I had NO intention of quitting when I got my first vape kit back in December of 2013. I was just curious whether it might help me cut back on my 2 PAD habit a bit. Well it did help me cut back -- to ZERO in less than a week, and I'm far from the only one person in the world with that sort of experience. I think your data somehow may have overlooked this.
Hey Stan: I had NO intention of quitting when I got my first vape kit back in December of 2013. I was just curious whether it might help me cut back on my 2 PAD habit a bit. Well it did help me cut back -- to ZERO in less than a week, and I'm far from the only one person in the world with that sort of experience. I think your data somehow may have overlooked this.
GlATNZ's meta-study claims that c-cigs reduce quitting?
Hey Stan: I had NO intention of quitting when I got my first vape kit back in December of 2013. I was just curious whether it might help me cut back on my 2 PAD habit a bit. Well it did help me cut back -- to ZERO in less than a week, and I'm far from the only one person in the world with that sort of experience. I think your data somehow may have overlooked this.
Likewise. Zero intention of quitting smoking when I got to ECF in Jan 2014, I just wanted something I could "smoke" indoors... By the end of Feb 2014, I didn't need to go outside at all, because I wasn't smoking anymore! Sure never saw THAT coming.
Andria
Make that [edited] talk with it around his melon.
Looks much too large Ross....his skull is probably a 1/3 that size to fit the minute amount of brain matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Summary of the "study" in Lancet. Registration required to read the full study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00521-4/abstract
Expert reaction from England :
expert reaction to meta-analysis looking at e-cigarette use and smoking cessation | Science Media Centre
Clive Bates' views on the study :
Who will be duped by error-strewn ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies? « The counterfactual
Carl Philips response to the study :
The bright side of new Glantz "meta-analysis": at least he left aerospace engineering
Glantz' rebuttal to " expert reaction " :
Our new meta-analysis of the entire relevant literature shows that e-cigarettes, as used, are associated with less not more quit | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Carl Philips on Glantz' rebuttal :
Glantz responds to his (other) critics, helping make my point
If you chose to read only one of these links, I really recommend reading this response to anyone even slightly interested in the topic.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00521-4/abstract
Expert reaction from England :
expert reaction to meta-analysis looking at e-cigarette use and smoking cessation | Science Media Centre
Clive Bates' views on the study :
Who will be duped by error-strewn ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies? « The counterfactual
Carl Philips response to the study :
The bright side of new Glantz "meta-analysis": at least he left aerospace engineering
Glantz' rebuttal to " expert reaction " :
Our new meta-analysis of the entire relevant literature shows that e-cigarettes, as used, are associated with less not more quit | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Carl Philips on Glantz' rebuttal :
Glantz responds to his (other) critics, helping make my point
If you chose to read only one of these links, I really recommend reading this response to anyone even slightly interested in the topic.
Last edited:
Oh boy. I think Greg could've done much better than that. Admittedly, the moderator was clearly hostile & gave him far less mic time, but still he sounded weak & equivocal, while Glantz was cocksure & authoritative.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
I actually think you are being a little too forgiving. I thought Greg Conley was awful, and i actually like him. He has been a good advocate for vaping, but he was out of his league here. I cut him a little slack i suppose, cuz he is a lawyer and not a " public health expert ", but still, he should've been a little more studied. He really said nothing substantive at all about the flaws of this meta-study. The moderator seemed more prepared than he tbh. She at least brought up some of the criticism leveled at the study from England. All Mr. Conley did, was repeat " Cochran Report " over and over.
I agree that he was given less mic time, but what would he have done with more mic time ? I can't even be sure if he had read Glantz' "study".
I didn't think the moderator was too unfair tbh, but i do fault PBS for not having someone like Clive Bates or Peter Hajek on, instead of Greg Conley.
If they are going to examine opposing views of science findings then scientists should be debating each other.
My first impulse on seeing the headline was to groan, "Oh no, here we go again," from all those years of watching timid and incompetent supposed smokers' advocates getting chewed up and spat out by even lower-tier anti-smokers. Judging by the comments, this is exactly what happened to Conley. I'd really rather not listen, because I already have PTSD from all those years of this vile and deceitful form of torture-by-media.
When will they ever learn? I think the business types like Conley never will. Vapers will just have to demand better advocates, and make it clear that Conley didn't belong in the ring.
When will they ever learn? I think the business types like Conley never will. Vapers will just have to demand better advocates, and make it clear that Conley didn't belong in the ring.
I agree with your critique. NPR has been one of the worst media outlets for vaping info and news, but I think this was an NPR affiliate station, and the show not syndicated.
My local NPR station, WBEZ in Chicago, has had some horrible deceitful vaping pieces, and no good ones that I know of. I have a feeling all the affiliates are towing the same line on vaping.
Either GLANTZ was in the studio, or they were using a far better (and far more expensive) telephone connection for him (perhaps something about Conley's phone added to the difference). I've heard situations like this in radio debating wherer the imbalance is made up for by a very good performance by the person with the tinny connection, but that was certainly not the case, here. The suprerior audio signal for Glantz's voice contributed to the perception of Glantz having more authority. Something to note for future phone debating.
The interviewer did a frightenly bad job of conducting the discussion fairly, and it resulted in extreme bias benifitting Glantz.
While Mr. Conley is great in the legislative hall but we need a spokesman that can hold their own in the scientific arena as well. Each area requires their own skill sets and it is moronic to assume that one person can excel in both. In addition The moderator clearly gave Glantz more time but Conley was to polite. He should of interrupted Glantz to prevent his run on with the mic. For a real time radio show dead air is one of the worst things and it was clear that Glantz is a practiced bag of hot air whereas Conley was out of his element. Again different skill sets.
Yeah. I fully agree. Greg was great in some of the California legislature sessions, but he is clearly not the one to take on situations like that radio segment.
I'd like to stick a bowling ball somewhere else.I'd like to stick a bowling ball in his mouth.....
You're absolutely right about the difference in quality of sound between the two men. If I were someone who knew nothing at all about "e-cigarettes" (other than was vaguely aware there was such a thing) and I listened to that show, I'd have definitely thought Glantz was the more knowledgable of the two guys. What a shame.
- Status
Similar threads
