Portrayal of vaping by MSM shows blatant negative bias

[DrMA]

Portrayal of vaping by MSM shows blatant negative bias. What's more troublesome is the apparent increasing trend by MSM to use dogmatic drivel against ecigs as click-bait, since they've noticed vapers react in large numbers to these kinds of stories. Has our advocacy fed the MSM trolls all this time?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/trsg/trs/2015/00000001/00000001/art00009

The same issue of this gutter rag focused on antismoker policy-based evidence-making has a number of junk articles about vaping and ecigs that may give us further insight into how to best adapt our advocacy efforts to be more effective.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/trsg/trs/2015/00000001/00000001

Also, topically-related, a separate article explains why most of what is published in scientific journals is false, misleading, and fabricated junk. Must read:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

 

[pennysmalls]

Well, I guess we'll have to mention their articles being click bait when we leave comments, I don't see how we can not mention it now.

 

[nicnik]

Portrayal of vaping by MSM shows blatant negative bias. What's more troublesome is the apparent increasing trend by MSM to use dogmatic drivel against ecigs as click-bait, since they've noticed vapers react in large numbers to these kinds of stories. Has our advocacy fed the MSM trolls all this time?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/trsg/trs/2015/00000001/00000001/art00009;jsessionid=2k7rd5o1v3lko.alice

The same issue of this gutter rag focused on antismoker policy-based evidence-making has a number of junk articles about vaping and ecigs that may give us further insight into how to best adapt our advocacy efforts to be more effective.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/trsg/trs/2015/00000001/00000001

Also, topically-related, a separate article explains why most of what is published in scientific journals is false, misleading, and fabricated junk. Must read:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

The first link has a session ID and didn't allow me to see or download the full article. It workd for me by removing the ID. Maybe this will work for other people, too:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/trsg/trs/2015/00000001/00000001/art00009

That third link, the Lancet article looks really good. I'll read more, but it says this near the beginning:

<quote>
The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put
their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices.
<end quote>