Thanks CASAA

[tj99959]

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk -- PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf

 

[wolfie_beast]

Awesome news. Finally, a *real* study. Thanks for posting. And thank you CASAA!!

 

[cozzicon]

You guys and everyone else... are welcome.

 

[tj99959]

You guys and everyone else... are welcome.

Wonders how many will catch that

 

[Arnie H]

I will repost the link as much as I can.

Great news!

 

[FloydianSlip]

Very good news for the day! Thanks for sharing.

 

[npalmy]

Great to hear something positive!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[John_]

Ahhh, good somebody posted about this. It'll be nice to have respected/reliable evidence.

 

[soba1]

Thanks.................for sharing

 

[r77r7r]

Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?

Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?

Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............

It doesn't matter. This is what's called a meta-analysis or meta-study, which is a study of studies, if you will. It's the first attempt to collect, organize, analyze and interpret information produced by others. The intent is to formulate a research question, then determine whether available literature contains enough information to answer the research question.

The answer is a qualified "yes, there is." And more importantly, even the most biased reviewer would have to conclude that the available literature supports the conclusions. Then comes the inevitable recommendation that researchers always make, which is that further study is warranted.

I read the whole thing, by the way.

 

[StormFinch]

Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?

Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............

It doesn't matter. This is what's called a meta-analysis or meta-study, which is a study of studies, if you will. It's the first attempt to collect, organize, analyze and interpret information produced by others. The intent is to formulate a research question, then determine whether available literature contains enough information to answer the research question.

The answer is a qualified "yes, there is." And more importantly, even the most biased reviewer would have to conclude that the available literature supports the conclusions. Then comes the inevitable recommendation that researchers always make, which is that further study is warranted.

I read the whole thing, by the way.

And besides, we can simply point out that all of the pharmaceutical companies do THEIR own studies which the FDA happily accepts, why can't we? At least we have years of real world use behind us, unlike the drugs that are pushed through only to show serious complications in the general population. *cough Chantix cough*

 

[tj99959]

Great. But aren't the other side going to just point out that it was funded by "our" side, and therefore be biased?

Just a thought. Carry on with the happy stufff..............

They have already been crying that they think it's our responsibility to prove that vaping is OK.

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

And besides, we can simply point out that all of the pharmaceutical companies do THEIR own studies which the FDA happily accepts, why can't we? At least we have years of real world use behind us, unlike the drugs that are pushed through only to show serious complications in the general population *cough Chantix cough*

Yes, but... those companies are required to do clinical trials of their substances because they're intended to be regulated under FDCA, not FSTCPA. FDA can't regulate e-cigs under FDCA because of the Soterra decision.

This isn't a clinical trial, using lab analysis. Rather, it's a study of other studies that may or may not have used lab analysis (I'm simplifying to make a point). The study author rightfully observes that the quality of the available data is all over the place, but that there is still enough evidence to strongly suggest that what we're doing is an order of magnitude safer.

Back in the day, I did several metadata analyses of water usage in the United States and its territories. We found similar data quality issues, ranging from data stored in cardboard boxes to complex relational databases. Just because the quality of the data is suspect, it doesn't mean that the conclusions reached by the overall collection are invalid, but you have to be careful about including some of them because of the QC issues. From my reading of the study, it appears that the study authors followed proper procedure. They included the good quality studies and discarded those had significant QC problems.