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
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