Scientific American E-cig article...

[zoiDman]

Nicadex? Hello!! Gimme some

I wouldn't think that only 9 out of 40 users quitting was indicative of the masses of attempted vapers...and then you also have to factor in things like whether or not they smoked cigalikes for a couple days and became unsatisfied quickly and didnt know there were more satisfying alternatives, or if they had a real desire to even quit in the first place.

I think you are Starting to Understand that how a Sample is chosen plays the Greatest Role in what a Statistical Result Looks Like.

 

[zoiDman]

I think you are Starting to Understand that how a Sample is chosen plays the Greatest Role in what a Statistical Result Looks Like.

BTW - If you Don't Know how the Sample was chosen, the Statistical Result of a Survey or Study/Trial Should Be Meaningless To You.

 

[Altaire Versailles]

BTW - If you Don't Know how the Sample was chosen, the Statistical Result of a Survey or Study/Trial Should Be Meaningless To You.

Exactly. Its like when Fox news calls 100 people in Alabama and Texas or New Mexico and asks them how they feel about a new government policy and then report that 90% of Americans dislike Obama's administration.

 

[Petrodus]

Exactly. Its like when Fox news calls 100 people in Alabama and Texas or New Mexico and asks them how they feel about a new government policy and then report that 90% of Americans dislike Obama's administration.

Obviously, Fox doesn't fall into the category of "state run media"

 

[zoiDman]

Exactly. Its like when Fox news calls 100 people in Alabama and Texas or New Mexico and asks them how they feel about a new government policy and then report that 90% of Americans dislike Obama's administration.

Bingo... We can that "Selective Sampling".

Why Tweak the Results or Relax the Test? Just pick Data Points that will reflect the Desired Results.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - Here is something I just wrote in Another thread about Statistics that is Relevant to what we are Discussing.

Gotcha.

I know an Undergraduate Professor who likes to say that…

“Statistics is a Mathematical Construct for Deceiving the Ignorant which is Effective 85% of the Time.”

We have had Many Long talks about the Ethical Role of Statistics. His views is Much Aligned with mine. And that is that Statistics is an Extremely Powerful Tool for gaining Insight into Phenomena which may be Difficult or even Impossible to Directly Observation. But the Potential for Misusing Statistics is Possible just as Great.

I can’t ask Every person in America how they Feel about a certain Issue. Or test Every 18650 Battery until it Fails to determine the Mean Time Between Failure.

The Problem with the Statistics is not in the Math. Math is one of the (perhaps the Only) True Fundamental Truth which is Devoid of Emotions. No, the problem lies in the Individuals who Apply the Math.

And the Classic way that People Subvert Statistics is by Not Telling you how a Statistical Result was Derived.

I’m Lazy so I won’t retype this short exchange in Another thread…









But this is Nothing New. And it has been going on since Day One.

None of this Upsets me. But there is one thing that I do find Very Disturbing and I want to be VERY CLEAR that I am Not Singling Out ANY Member here or Directing this Towards Any Individual. And that is the Omission of Statistical Results that may Discredit or Cast a Bad Light on a Reported Statistics result.

I read so much on the Internet about some Study that says Bla Bla Bla has been Shown to be Effective or Safe. What they didn’t tell you was that this was Only One result. And that there are Hundreds of Other Studies that show that it is Not Effective or Safe.

A Research/Reporter who will Scan over a Mountain of Study Results to Find the Result they want is in My Opinion Abusing the use of Statistics at the Highest Level.

Because if a person reports that something is “Safe” or “Effective” when you have the knowledge that there is Substantial Evidence to the Contrary, they are Actively engaging in Deceit.

Once again, this Is Not Directed at Anyone here. Just me Take/Rant on how Statistics can/is Sometimes Misused.

 

[2coils]

Good Read....The second paragraphh tells it all about FDA approved methods. From the article....Even with counseling and the use of aids approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, such as the nicotine patch and non-nicotine medicines, 75 percent of smokers light up again within a year. “We need better treatments because the current ones just aren’t working all that well,” says Jed Rose Im sure the FDA loves seeing this information broadcasted all over the web! ..The cat is out of the bag!. WHEN these trials report in our favor, it would be unfathomable for the FDA to put the kabosh on e-cigs!

 

[rothenbj]

As much as I'd encourage that, da ANTZ would toss back our objections to their BS in our face (bias).

Our primary hopes should be hinged upon independent scientific studies that eliminate da BP/BT monetary influences!

At least that article did mention da 1,000% reduction in carcinogens. That's VERY powerful!!!

Unfortunately, once you have a 100% reduction in carcinogens, the other 900% really doesn't matter.

 

[WalkinRuin]

I just read through the comments and I don't think there were by any "paid trolls."

There were a few too poorly written to matter, and 20+ 'ecigs saved my life' stories.

Regarding the last comment I see, #53, what makes people think these devices are so attractive to young children and adolescents? Sounds like they are grasping at straws now. This an adult thing and adults should be able to teach their kids.

 

[DC2]

Regarding the last comment I see, #53, what makes people think these devices are so attractive to young children and adolescents? Sounds like they are grasping at straws now. This an adult thing and adults should be able to teach their kids.

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
--Adolf Hitler

 

[Vocalek]

Nicadex? Hello!! Gimme some

I wouldn't think that only 9 out of 40 users quitting was indicative of the masses of attempted vapers...and then you also have to factor in things like whether or not they smoked cigalikes for a couple days and became unsatisfied quickly and didnt know there were more satisfying alternatives, or if they had a real desire to even quit in the first place.

Did the article fail to mention that the 40 subjects were recruited to exclude anyone who wanted to quit smoking? The purpose was to discover whether e-cigarettes would help the not-interested-in-quitting smokers to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoked. It was a surprise to the researcher that so many of their subjects DID quit.

Addendum: To put this into perspective, Nicorette, Nicoderm, etc. advertise that these products can double your chances of quitting. Sounds impressive until you find out that the chance of quitting without assistance is only 3%, so doubling that rate isn't saying a whole lot. In contrast a 22% quit rate represents an impressive increase of 19 percentage points. The next logical question becomes, "If the quit rate is that high among those unmotivated to quit, how much higher might it be for those who do want to quit?"

 

[Spazmelda]

I have a response all written up for #53, since he referenced one of my posts, but I haven't submitted it yet.

 

[BuGlen]

I have a response all written up for #53, since he referenced one of my posts, but I haven't submitted it yet.

I just submitted a response to that post in the comments. Hopefully the points I made there will be taken in the context in which they were intended.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

In response to #53 I posted a quote from Dr Michael Siegal about new ASH survey

Quote: "In a second study that blows out of the water the anti-smoking groups' contention that electronic cigarettes appeal to nonsmokers, especially youth, and will lead to increased smoking, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH-UK) was unable to find a single nonsmoker in Great Britain - either youth or adult - who regularly uses electronic cigarettes.

The study, released this week, involved a survey of 12,171 adults and 2,178 children ages 11-18 in February and March of this year. Despite widespread awareness of electronic cigarettes among youth and adults, the survey failed to find a single adult or youth never smoker who regularly uses electronic cigarettes."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/05/uk-study-fails-to-find-single-nonsmoker.html

http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf

 

[Altaire Versailles]

Did the article fail to mention that the 40 subjects were recruited to exclude anyone who wanted to quit smoking? The purpose was to discover whether e-cigarettes would help the not-interested-in-quitting smokers to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoked. It was a surprise to the researcher that so many of their subjects DID quit.

Addendum: To put this into perspective, Nicorette, Nicoderm, etc. advertise that these products can double your chances of quitting. Sounds impressive until you find out that the chance of quitting without assistance is only 3%, so doubling that rate isn't saying a whole lot. In contrast a 22% quit rate represents an impressive increase of 19 percentage points. The next logical question becomes, "If the quit rate is that high among those unmotivated to quit, how much higher might it be for those who do want to quit?"

thats makes more sense then if thats the case. 1/4 of people who dont want to quit quitting anyway makes sense

 

[Elnroth]

thats makes more sense then if thats the case. 1/4 of people who dont want to quit quitting anyway makes sense

I would be of these people. I had no intention of quitting, I was just curious. Now I'm almost eight months smoke free. I know several others that fall into this category as well. I don't believe I'm substituting, I've replaced, as vaping is a more satisfying experience for me.