Actually, I believe the correct statement is "There's a 50% chance that 42% of all stats are made up"
Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem. - The Washington Post
"Public Health consensus" on ecigs signed by PHE & 11 other agencies
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Actually, I believe the correct statement is "There's a 50% chance that 42% of all stats are made up"
Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem. - The Washington Post
About halfway down the BMJ page which carried the stupid McKee/Capewell rant:
http://www. bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863
There is a "This Weeks' Poll"
Was Public Health England right to endorse electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid?
Of course, I chose: "Yes"
http://www. bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863
There is a "This Weeks' Poll"
Was Public Health England right to endorse electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid?
Of course, I chose: "Yes"
Diketones represent one risk to a person's health. Cigarettes represent many risks. They are probably talking about the average vaper in the UK based on their own research and they are comparing total estimated risk from vaping to total estimated risk from smoking. Smoking can give you cancer or heart failure before you ever get COPD.
If all the researchers did was compare that single diketone related risk factor, and ignored all others, maybe their assessment would have been different. But that's not what they did.
«All of the evidence suggests that the health risks posed by e-cigarettes are relatively small by comparison [...] There is no circumstance in which it is better for a smoker to continue smoking»
E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus - Press releases - GOV.UK
Correction: It's 11 other agencies, I must've counted them thrice the first time around.Would a mod please correct the thread title?
I like how the subtitle starts
Its like all of this is based on revelation and revolution. That is to say how well informed the public is and how close to raising up against it the public might be.
This is how I'm looking at stuff like this:
E-cigarettes inflame DC debate (The Hill) | Page 2 | E-Cigarette Forum
I'm not trying to suggest that you're contradicting yourself. Not at all. I'm still evolving on how much and what sort of compromise I'm willing to accept in the politics, as well as where it is actual compromise on principle.
I like hearing people's opinions like in this thread, and in similar discussions, and I can appreciate yours, as well as SmokeyJoe's and DrMA's. I've been more and more wanting to avoid misrepresenting smoking, though, so that's where I'm evolving most.
I want to be wise politically, but true to my beliefs. It's a tough balance for me.
The link to my earlier post was about compromising principle (which I do not do) vs. compromising implementation of those principles - where there can be some give and take as to, say, relative importance of what can be done with agreement.
And you're right - this is no contradiction. Here, the issue isn't - well, lets allow them the ban on kids and advertising but as long as they are saying how bad McKee & Capewell are, we can 'give them that'. No.... my point goes to what they claim to be their purpose - to encourage people to vape, and what their 'solution' was - to ban advertising. So it isn't a matter of compromising - but a matter of pure logic - this is what you say you want, but then you suggest what amounts to just the opposite!
And on kids, Smokey Joe got it right and they got it wrong.
That said, I applaud them showing up McKee & Capewell - but they should have left it at that, rather than try to weasel their way back into the TC sentiments on bans. It's equivalent to someone saying, for example - yeah, people should have the rights to some guns, but who needs a 30 round magazine? IOW, they don't get what the actual right to bear arms is about.
The risk factor for diketones, according to some (i.e. you), is considered very significant compared to other risks that come with smoking. Most things in your post don't add up to the previous points made or what I was getting at. I think the researchers routinely downplay the diketone risk factor down to near zero when it comes to information pertinent to this thread, while some vapers will talk it up as possibly worse than smoking (diketones) and damage that cannot be cured regardless of treatment (unlike heart and cancer issues).
Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad it is downplayed down to near zero concern in a thread like this, and just wish there was more consistency overall on the issue.
I agree, but I'm not so sure they don't believe what they say, and that might be more why they say it. That's one problem with compromising; it can be confuse people. Maybe even allows them to confuse themselves, or avoid making up their own minds.
It certainly could be too low of an estimate. We don't really know, but I'll agree that "great flavor, and a zillion options" are big reasons for the success, and future success of vaping luring people away from smoking.
IF they say 'they want to encourage vapers' and they think (and they do) that advertising encourages people to buy, and they want to ban advertising, then they can't really believe what they say, since you can't believe in both sides of a contradiction... And ... we can't believe what they say either - for the same reason :- )
Right.
Do they really want to encourage vaping for its public health benefits, or are they trying to steer vapiing in a direction where they play a major role in combining it with their clinic support? Let them be the ones recommending it in their clinics. Maybe they'd have no objection to adverstising if the ads say "See your local smoking cessation clinic, and ask about the benefits of vaping products like Vuse."
It's a bit of a stretch what I'm saying here, and you're right about the contradiction, but it makes me wonder what it is that they actually believe, and my best guess is that they are conflicted, themselves.
Looking at how Donald Trump is doing in the polls tells you a lot.
I'm not giving my opinion on Donald Trump either way so as to keep politics out of it.
I'm just saying that it says a lot about how sick and tired people are getting of the status quo.
It seems to me it is a tough balance for most of us.
Except for Jman8 and Kent C who will remain true to their beliefs through thick and thin.
I don't know if that's admirable or dangerous.
But I know it's right.
You're over complicating things. It really doesn't matter if 'they're trying to steer to clinics' - if that's the case they should have said so directly, rather than involving themselves in a contradiction that tends to lessen whatever good points they were trying to make.
Perhaps they just know their main audience who they think may praise them without either seeing or understand their contradictions. And unfortunately, if that's the case, then they're probably right
For me, it isn't a matter of 'true to my beliefs', it's reading what they said and pointing out the idiocy, while acknowledging the good part. Unfortunately, the idiocy diminishes the good part.
I wasn't just restricting my comment to the topics of this particular thread.
And I'll take this opportunity to add to my previous post.
This "balance" between a wise political approach and and being true to your beliefs...
Is complicated to the extent that politics does not match up with truth...
The real core of the internal conflict is that things don't go they way they SHOULD go.
And the fix to that truly is to fix the political issue.
But then, to do that, we probably have to fix the media issue first.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked