Scary as it relates to the tobacco prohibitions world.

[Katya]

Next time you meet Dr. F at a vape conference, ask him how many of his submissions came back without review, or with raving personal attacks instead of actual peer review.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but peer review is not the perfect shiny example of unbiased academic opinion you make it to be. Like any human system, it has drawbacks and limitations, not the least of which are the personal beliefs and perception biases of the reviewers themselves. Do you really see Glantz as a reviewer ever accepting any paper submitted by Siegel?

Yup. And politics. And money. And collusion.

Unfortunately, the NIH and the FDA are under heavy "influence" of the above.

But if the research topic is not political, all is well. There is plenty of great research happening in this country.

BTW, I just watched Dr. Gupta's 2-part documentary about medical uses of a certain unmentionable here plant--on CNN! Very interesting and highly recommended. Great example of politics getting in the way of science.

"This journey is also about a Draconian system where politics override science and patients are caught in the middle. [...] More remarkable, many doctors and scientists, worried about being ostracized for even discussing the potential of (censored), called me confidentially to share their own stories of the drug and the benefit it has provided to their patients. I will honor my promise not to name them, [...] However, this particular issue still bothers me: How can the government deny the benefits of medical (censored) even as it holds a patent for those very same benefits? Members of the Food and Drug Administration declined my repeated requests for an interview."

 

[Katya]

Oh, and nobody explained it better than this guy--my new hero!

Please watch this video (if you haven't seen it):

 

[FourWinds]

As you've all said 'it's a money thing.'

I think this philosopher was perhaps trying to start a cheeky dialectic debate on the whole paid science issue. Perhaps he should be careful and remember what happened to Socrates.

 

[Kent C]

OK guys, this is about ecigs and the tobacco debate. Let's move the global climate change debate Outside.

Unfortunately, they're connected by the same mind set. And I've included ecig stuff as well. If the mods don't like it, they'll chime in. "molimelite" asked. I answered. .... as did you

 

[molimelight]

I don't think there's a "mind set" in having a certain amount of faith in good research and sound scientific principles. I do think there is a "mind set" in the paranoid belief that there is a conspiracy to shove things such as global warming or 9/11 answers down the throat of an unsuspecting public. I think if there is a parallel to the politics of e-cigarettes it's that the same type of forces are involved in the politics of medical {OTHER STUFF}, and to an even greater degree with e-cigarettes, since big tobacco is involved as well as big pharma.

 

[sonicdsl]

Yes, let's stay on topic please, and let's avoid references to the "other stuff" too.

 

[Jman8]

I think what gets me is when a friend or family member says something like, "I heard those things explode." Granted I don't hear this all that often (maybe twice in last year), but even hearing it once from someone who you've discussed lots of intelligent topics with, AND who you've vaped around, is enough.

It is amazing how well scare tactics work on the average, and otherwise reasonably, intelligent person. I can see the "nicotine is highly addictive" meme going on indefinitely, even while anecdotal evidence of vapers seems to counter this often. As smokers, nicotine sure as heckfire seemed highly addictive. Was hard to dispute that. Cutting back from say a pack a day to half a pack, and having that go on for say 3 months was very challenging. But as a vaper, cutting down nicotine seems pretty easy. That a pack a day smoker for 20+ years could go from say 24 mg, to 12 mg in a matter of months, and that another would go to 0 nic in say a year's time, is either amazing human feat, or possibly pointing to fact that nicotine isn't so highly addictive, and that humans can in fact, self regulate their own usage.

We vapers are pretty much aware of all the memes floating around and most don't need to be repeated in this thread. Yet the "we don't have any idea about the long term effects" is one that is challenging to get around. It is accurate to state that and put it forth. But also seems to be entirely applicable to any technological device that's come out in the last decade. And yet, not equally applied to that technology. And just the fact that things that are allegedly researched for the long term, and are say FDA approved, but end up getting recalled cause not one or two, but more like 1000 people are reporting same dangerous side effect, makes it seem like it really truly does not matter (to the anti cause) even if we did have say 50 years of well established research going on with eCigs/vaping. They'd still likely have the "nicotine is highly addictive" and "looks just like smoking, therefore it is" memes to fall back on in an attempt to scare the bejeebus out of the average, otherwise intelligent, folks.

Some of whom are my friends and family.

 

[Kent C]

I was talking about the junk science mind set that we've seen. 9/11? Really? No more to say.... have a nice life.....

 

[Kent C]

Cutting back from say a pack a day to half a pack, and having that go on for say 3 months was very challenging. But as a vaper, cutting down nicotine seems pretty easy. That a pack a day smoker for 20+ years could go from say 24 mg, to 12 mg in a matter of months, and that another would go to 0 nic in say a year's time, is either amazing human feat, or possibly pointing to fact that nicotine isn't so highly addictive, and that humans can in fact, self regulate their own usage.

This surprised me as well. I was a 3 pack a day - started at 24mg, reduced to 12mg within 4 months, now at 6-11mg with DIY. And when the vets here (at the time) said that the vapor/smoke aspect was around 50% of the habit, I believed that. I said at one point that if the patches or gum would have produced smoke, they may have worked for some

 

[Maestro]

Meah. Nothing new. Just ask Galileo.

 

[twgbonehead]

Philosophy Professor Wants To Criminalize Scientific Dissent - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Perhaps he should be forced to drink hemlock?

(That's a historical reference, for those who think I'm just being nasty!)

 

[zanedog]

As you've all said 'it's a money thing.'

I think this philosopher was perhaps trying to start a cheeky dialectic debate on the whole paid science issue. Perhaps he should be careful and remember what happened to Socrates.

What happened to Socrates? Is he OK? I have not seen anything on cnn, but they are mostly reporting about the lost jetliner.

 

[sebt]

This is actually a really interesting article. For example, this:

Torcello assures us, "We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions."

is exactly the argument that's being used (or implied) when I and many other people here comment on junk-science stories about vaping. ANTZ spokespeople are clearly abusing the authority of "science" to undermine the public's ability to develop and voice informed opinions.

I think Torcello makes some very interesting points; and is rightly criticised for the implications of what he's said by Reason.com. That's how philosophers work - you advance a theory, you get criticised, you modify the theory or argue that you've been misinterpreted. That is how science is supposed to work, as well: and no doubt it's how real science - as practised every day, quietly out of the limelight, by researchers - generally works.

The problem arises when you try to communicate science to the general public. This is the background to Torcello's views; I think there's a general crisis in the presentation/abuse of science in politics, and Torcello's views wouldn't even have occurred to anyone without this background. An example of the general crisis: McKee of the BMJ deciding that no articles funded by the tobacco industry will be accepted. What's wrong with peer review? Isn't it good enough to work out whether an article - whoever it might have funded it - is scienfitically valid or not?.

And in the UK we're constantly bombarded with what Carl Phillips would call "junk epidemiology", always trumpeted across the media by well-funded pressure-groups. "Having The Letter M In Your Name Decreases Risk of Cancer, Scientists Find (But Only If You Have a Cat)" is my take on this. I was so relieved last week when a Hungarian friend told me that on one Hungarian news website he reads, "British scientists have discovered that..." is the stock opening line of comic articles, re-reporting this dross!

No-one trusts politicians. So "science" has been pressed into service as some kind of guarantor of integrity, often by people who merely have a political agenda. In all this confusion it's hard to tell what really is science (in some sense that guarantees that it's true) and what is "science" - of the kind presented by McKee, Glantz etc. To tell the difference you have to dig in to the research itself and evaluate it; and because this is time-consuming and difficult, it's far easier to simply accept things at face value. Which is exactly why this kind of degenerate "scientific" politics works.

 

[AgentAnia]

This is actually a really interesting article. For example, this:

Torcello assures us, "We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions."

is exactly the argument that's being used (or implied) when I and many other people here comment on junk-science stories about vaping. ANTZ spokespeople are clearly abusing the authority of "science" to undermine the public's ability to develop and voice informed opinions.

I think Torcello makes some very interesting points; and is rightly criticised for the implications of what he's said by Reason.com. That's how philosophers work - you advance a theory, you get criticised, you modify the theory or argue that you've been misinterpreted. That is how science is supposed to work, as well: and no doubt it's how real science - as practised every day, quietly out of the limelight, by researchers - generally works.

The problem arises when you try to communicate science to the general public. This is the background to Torcello's views; I think there's a general crisis in the presentation/abuse of science in politics, and Torcello's views wouldn't even have occurred to anyone without this background. An example of the general crisis: McKee of the BMJ deciding that no articles funded by the tobacco industry will be accepted. What's wrong with peer review? Isn't it good enough to work out whether an article - whoever it might have funded it - is scienfitically valid or not?.

And in the UK we're constantly bombarded with what Carl Phillips would call "junk epidemiology", always trumpeted across the media by well-funded pressure-groups. "Having The Letter M In Your Name Decreases Risk of Cancer, Scientists Find (But Only If You Have a Cat)" is my take on this. I was so relieved last week when a Hungarian friend told me that on one Hungarian news website he reads, "British scientists have discovered that..." is the stock opening line of comic articles, re-reporting this dross!

No-one trusts politicians. So "science" has been pressed into service as some kind of guarantor of integrity, often by people who merely have a political agenda. In all this confusion it's hard to tell what really is science (in some sense that guarantees that it's true) and what is "science" - of the kind presented by McKee, Glantz etc. To tell the difference you have to dig in to the research itself and evaluate it; and because this is time-consuming and difficult, it's far easier to simply accept things at face value. Which is exactly why this kind of degenerate "scientific" politics works.

Well thought, and well said, sebt. The case in a nutshell. Can't give you more than one "like," so here are 3

 

[Jman8]

...exactly the argument that's being used (or implied) when I and many other people here comment on junk-science stories about vaping. ANTZ spokespeople are clearly abusing the authority of "science" to undermine the public's ability to develop and voice informed opinions.

This is most relevant statements to this thread. Thus far in history of eCigs and vaping, science (aka research, studies) strongly appears to be favoring the vaper's position. Yet, that is not really being promoted, and instead is being trounced upon, by persons with "Dr." added to their name. And trounced upon, not by science, but by philosophical assertions that are akin to reasoning from a young high school student.

As much as this has visible implications (to vapers) in affecting the politics of vaping, it really really exposes flaws in how science is working for humanity at this time. It does also make it seem like all / any other issue(s) that science is involved with and that has a very visible public face is plausibly subject to corruption or incredibly poor guidance (in terms of funding). To me, a prime and highly relevant example is the science around SHS. As a non-vaper / smoker, I cared about the science around that topic, but didn't pay much attention to it. Now as a vaper, I pay a lot more attention to it, and it seems corrupted to me at this time. As in SHS has lots of memes widely known and associated with it, but all of which no longer show up as exactly credible to me.

I respect actual science, and don't believe actual science ("as practised every day, quietly out of the limelight, by researchers") is affected by this. But this public face of "science" that is seen as "accurate truth" by so many (I would say vast majority), is truly in jeopardy. People that highly disagree with that assertion are ones that show up to me as no different than a staunch religious zealot who is unable to take the blinders off and see reality except thru rose colored glassed about their own belief system.

No reasonable vaper claims vaping to be perfectly harmless and infallible. Instead, reasonable vapers keep up with science, news and politics about 'all things vaping' and are able to construct assertions that are generally well founded and backed by latest (actual) science or overwhelming anecdotal evidence. Able to make distinctions where distinctions are discovered / obvious.

Yet, media spin and onslaught of psuedo science are able to control the public narrative thus far around vaping. While that may not bode well for the future of vaping, it also doesn't bode well for the future of actual science, as the endeavor will continue to show up as highly susceptible to corruption and able to be perverted based solely on funding and partisan politics.

 

[Kent C]

To me, a prime and highly relevant example is the science around SHS. As a non-vaper / smoker, I cared about the science around that topic, but didn't pay much attention to it. Now as a vaper, I pay a lot more attention to it, and it seems corrupted to me at this time. As in SHS has lots of memes widely known and associated with it, but all of which no longer show up as exactly credible to me.

Here's a report and analysis that came out in Cato Institute's 'Regulation' magazine in 1993, shortly after the first EPA ruling on second hand smoke. It showed the truly junk science used - skewing results and using non-standard statistical tools used in order to come to a 'predetermined' results just barely over the statistical significant number needed to go to press release.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1993/7/v16n3-5.pdf

It's long, but if you want to know exactly what junk science is, this is a good example.

A significant part:

Manipulation of Data

"Is the EPA meta-analysis** a scientifically valid
manipulation of data? Combining data and undertaking
a meta-analysis are valid procedures under
appropriate circumstances. But in order to make
the outcome value of their meta-analysis "valid"
and "statistically significant," the EPA first had to
adjust the data as originally published in
peer-reviewed literature and, second, they had to
broaden the confidence intervals to a scientifically
unconventional level of 90 percent.

When a number of studies are combined, the
confidence intervals generally are "ratcheted
down," or tightened, to assess significance; the EPA
did just the opposite and in so doing diminished its
report's scientific value. Lowering of statistical
standards to make valid otherwise unmeaningful
results is an unusual and dubious scientific practice.
In the past, the EPA has employed 95 percent
confidence levels as a measure of scientific validity.
Had the EPA done so in this case, or had it not
adjusted the original data, its analysis would not
have had the same outcome. If the EPA had included
all of the available published data, and not just
11 of 13 studies, its outcome assessment also would
have been different. The manipulation of data in
this manner to develop statistical significance permitted
the EPA to declare passive smoking a Group
A carcinogen-the highest rank possible. Without
the recalculations and manipulations, the EPA
would have not met any of the three classic criteria
for establishing risk.

A relative risk of 1.19, even if the data were
not manipulated, is extremely weak. It is of the
same general magnitude as the risk that an
American citizen faces of dying in a bicycling
accident over the course of a lifetime. It is a risk
that is less than that associated with developing
colon cancer by drinking chlorinated water,
which is in most U.S. cities' water supplies. It is
generally accepted in the medical literature that
any time a relative risk is less than 2.0, the distinct
possibility exists that the finding is artifactual
and a consequence of the influence of confounding
factors."

** "meta-analysis"

Instead of just gathering the data from all the epidemiological studies submitted, because doing it that way didn't get their 'desired result', the EPA did a 'meta-analysis' of only 11 cherry picked studies, and then changed the standard statistical 'confidence interval'.

 

[VapieDan]

This article relates to global warming and it's deniers. However, with the "scientific consensus" that tobacco control likes to market, all e cig research could be in danger based on TC's claim of "sun revolves around the earth, e cig smoking".

Philosophy Professor Wants To Criminalize Scientific Dissent - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Does this not define "Political Correctness"?

 

[zanedog]

ok all you greenies, dispute this. How about we change the slant on everything and start whining about oxygen depeltion in the atmosphere and forget about the C02 enrichment benefit. Tell the people the atmosphere is losing oxygen at a very fast rate, perhaps that will get them to quit driving cars?