As part of CASAA's continuing efforts to debunk anti-THR lies, Carl V Phillips's comment (which is basically a paper in itself) on the recent Popova and Ling article is now published with the original article at BMC Public Health | User comments | Nonsmokers¿ responses to new warning labels on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: an experimental study
Popova and Ling used a shoddy research report as an excuse for demanding misleading warning labels on smoke-free products. Carl points out that their research was unethical, their conclusions were unrelated to the research, and the research itself was so badly designed as to show nothing. He further points out how the peer review process failed miserably.
Popova and Ling used a shoddy research report as an excuse for demanding misleading warning labels on smoke-free products. Carl points out that their research was unethical, their conclusions were unrelated to the research, and the research itself was so badly designed as to show nothing. He further points out how the peer review process failed miserably.
Last edited:
