Pseudoscience

[jolly_st_nic]

That is the word I'd use to describe these new studies defaming e cigarettes. I read the wikipedia article on pseudoscience and these studies fit the definition very well. A telltale sign is that, when studies defaming e cigarettes are referenced by the media, critical pieces of information are omitted. In the recent study that received a lot of press, lab tests confirmed that e cigarettes cause dna breaks. Here is an example of the press treatment of the study.

E-cigarettes are no safer than smoking tobacco, scientists warn

Nowhere in the article is any mention that e cigarettes were compared, not just with air, but with tobacco smoke as well (the tobacco-treated cells all died within 24 hours). The study, if tobacco-treated cells are compared to vapor-treated cells, really suggests the opposite of the headline, which states that e cigarettes are no safer than tobacco cigarettes. There is clearly an agenda being promoted by the press when such vital information is omitted from the articles.

Robert K Merton lay out 5 criteria to distinguish between what is real science and what is pseudoscience. He said that, in the case of real science, there must be detachment. The wikipedia article explains: "The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must be simply for the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should not have personal reasons to expect certain results."

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet scientists studying e cigarettes actually studied cancer patients to "prove" that e cigarettes do not help anybody with cessation. Cancer patients are one of the most unlikely groups to quit smoking real cigarettes, so it looks like scientists chose these patients to guarantee the results of their flawed study.

It's bull.... pseudoscience. They might as well defend God as the Creator of the Universe or diagnose runaway slaves with drapetomania.

Drapetomania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vaslovik]

I hope they aren't saying "The science is settled." That didn't go over so well the last time they said it.

 

[Maiar]

I actually got into it with one of my local radio stations on their facebook page. They posted an article about how you shouldn't vape. So I checked it out and the studies cited claimed that 2 to 3 (depending on the particualr juice) carcinogens are showing up in tests. I of course counter with the general consensus that it's 90-95% safer (as per the public health england review of the available studies). Then it dawned on me, 2 or 3 carcinogens showing up would be about a 95% reduction in carcinogens compared to a cigarette. It's all in how people phrase things. Someone who for some reason hates vaping (I don't understand those miserable .......s) will point to the same findings we point to about safety and see a totally different result.

It's ....ing frustrating arguing with people who are already convinced that it's this terrible thing and act like they got sexually assaulted by a vape pen. They even pull some of the same stunts as the anti vaccination movement (the kings of pseudoscience). They cherry pick results and reframe them to fit their rhetoric. When in all honesty, with the scientific method there's going to be outlier studies that will look bad. But as with all science you have to take the whole picture into account. Which is what I believe Public Health England tried to do with their review. Next thing you know they're going to be pulling anti vaccine style math on us. Well if 5 out of 10 unvaccinated kids got pertussis and 6 out of 1000 vaccinated ones also got it, that's clear that vaccines don't work because more vaccinated kids got sick.

 

[Ongeslepen]

Some organisations are flat out lying to reach their goal. Other organisations are just picking pseudo science articles what suits their needs best.

It's not about spreading truth or knowledge, it's about reaching their goals. No matter what. You can see this behavior everywhere. Companies who must make profit no matter what. Politicians, saying whatever "we" want to hear.

It's a damn shame. We can't take any form of information for granted. I don't even take the governments serious anymore. How could i after all those lies?

 

[sonicbomb]

Arguing with a idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how erudite your argument it will simply knock the pieces over, defecate on the board, and fly back to its flock to claim victory.

 

[sofarsogood]

Governments can't afford to let science discover truth because they govern with lies so they subsidize the science so heavily that scientists become science whores who put out what ever the customer wants. The March of Dimes is called that because the original organization funded Polio vaccine research with private contributions down to pennies from kids. The most important scientific discoveries of all time were not funded by governments, Coperincus, Galileo, Einsetein,...Han Lic.

(Some Chinese are calling ecigs their 5 great invention after paper, printing, navigation and gun powder.)

 

[WillyZee]

money ... the root of Evil

The Fix is in

 

[skoony]

The study concerning gene suppression is completely bogus.
The genes were not damaged. The genes in question have two
states of activity. Un-suppressed or, suppressed. The correct term
the study should have used is active or, inactive.

When the genes are in a inactive state generally means there is
nothing to suppress due to a more sterile environment. They are
active in a less sterile environment. PG/VG are antibacterial and,
antiviral. One should expect these genes to be inactive or,as the
study says suppressed.

Regards
Mike

 

[zoiDman]

It is a well known fact that 4 out of 3 people in America have a problem interpreting Statistical Study Data.



BTW - PLEASE READ! Breaking Links to Junk Science and Other Rubbish Posts

 

[Tempesta]

I think junk science is the most accurate term...

 

[Maestro]

A half truth is a whole lie

No need to make stuff up. You can demonize just about anything and still stick strictly to facts. That's what junk science boils down to. It's all in how you present it. Look up Dihydrogen Monoxide for a good example.

 

[choochoogranny]

A half truth is a whole lie.

I LOVE that!