The failed mechanic spouts new drivel

[DrMA]

The "study" consists of a "model" which treats dead smokers as "net population benefit" while those who quit by [HASHTAG]#vaping[/HASHTAG] as "net population harm" and predictably "concludes" ecigs are bad. Essentially the glANTZ terrorist is inciting the cold, calculated [HASHTAG]#DeskMurder[/HASHTAG] of 45M Americans for fear a single non-smoker might choose to enjoy a harmless vape every now and again.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2430796

 

[Lessifer]

Ugh, I could barely make it through the abstract, I'll read the full article later.

If my mind wasn't warped by what I was reading, I think he said: If you assume that e-cigarettes are harmful(unlikely), and that the only people who will be using them are people who never would have smoked(impossible), then there is a potential net harm.

 

[Jman8]

What a great title for this thread @DrMA

 

[nicnik]

Ugh, I could barely make it through the abstract, I'll read the full article later.

If my mind wasn't warped by what I was reading, I think he said: If you assume that e-cigarettes are harmful(unlikely), and that the only people who will be using them are people who never would have smoked(impossible), then there is a potential net harm.

They want you to see that 1%-50% of harm relative to smoking that they assume for their calculations. Put in the form of "What if?", they don't think they have any need to back up that speculation. Simply plant that "50%" in the reader's mind.

 

[Lessifer]

They want you to see that 1%-50% of harm relative to smoking that they assume for their calculations. Put in the form of "What if?", they don't think they have any need to back up that speculation. Simply plant that "50%" in the reader's mind.

Yeah, that is horrible.

This is just ridiculous though: "Absent the primary effect of e-cigarette promotion being only to divert current or future conventional cigarette smokers to e-cigarette use"
I'm reading that right, aren't I? That is saying, if you ignore the fact that e-cigarettes are primarily used by current smokers, or those who would otherwise start smoking.

 

[Kent C]

They want you to see that 1%-50% of harm relative to smoking that they assume for their calculations. Put in the form of "What if?", they don't think they have any need to back up that speculation. Simply plant that "50%" in the reader's mind.

The most significant aspect behind the study.

 

[nicnik]

The "study" consists of a "model" which treats dead smokers as "net population benefit" while those who quit by [HASHTAG]#vaping[/HASHTAG] as "net population harm" and predictably "concludes" ecigs are bad. Essentially the glANTZ terrorist is inciting the cold, calculated [HASHTAG]#DeskMurder[/HASHTAG] of 45M Americans for fear a single non-smoker might choose to enjoy a harmless vape every now and again.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2430796

There's a link on the page to a new editorial, that seems to be intended to be a companion to the study. The preview, among other stupidity, states their objection to flavors making the product more enjoyable, and calling for the FDA to ban them for that reason. Not a claim of attracting children, or dangers of inhaling flavors, but because they are enjoyable (though a bit later they throw in the additional worry of flavors that attract children).

Here's the sentence:

"The proposed rule, however, does not address marketing to people younger than 18 years, the use of menthols and other flavors in e-cigarettes that make the produce (sic) more appealing, child safety issues, or prohibit the use of the devices in places that are smoke-free."

.
Here's the editorial:

E-Cigarettes—The Roles of Regulation and Clinician
JAMA Intern Med. Published online August 31, 2015.;():. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4436.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2430798

 

[Bill Godshall]

Not wasting money for the full text, but Glantz’ Monte Carlo simulation estimated that e-cigs may pose population health risks if they are 30% as harmful as cigarettes, if smokers stopped using them to quit smoking, and if millions of nonsmokers begin to vape.
Ecigs likely to have negative population health effects if more than 20-30% as bad as cigs | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education

This is very similar to Glantz' Monte Carlo simulation for snus a decade ago, another garbage in, garbage out junk study

 

[nicnik]

Not wasting money for the full text, but Glantz’ Monte Carlo simulation estimated that e-cigs may pose population health risks if they are 30% as harmful as cigarettes, if smokers stopped using them to quit smoking, and if millions of nonsmokers begin to vape.
Ecigs likely to have negative population health effects if more than 20-30% as bad as cigs | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education

This is very similar to Glantz' Monte Carlo simulation for snus a decade ago, another garbage in, garbage out junk study

This is a must read, even if you've read the abstract of the study. It's Glantz' blog post about the study.

 

[OldBatty]

This is very similar to Glantz' Monte Carlo simulation for snus a decade ago, another garbage in, garbage out junk study

I don't think you can compare this to a 'study', the mathematics of risk (ie gambling) are quite different than most normal scientific research. It may or may not be flawed but please do not judge it by the standards of the other.

 

[sofarsogood]

As I get older I find the world to be crueler than I thought. Not much has changed since biblical times. These tobacco control people can't see themselves, how jaded and hollowed out they are. They can't afford to let tobacco go away. What would their kids do for a living if not pray on smokers?

 

[Mossy]

What a load of horse

"For the reasons described above we really did not know how things would turn out when we started. Indeed, that was the whole reason for doing the study."


This is what they meant

"The model that we developed" was so we could be certain of the outcome..............

 

[nicnik]

What a load of horse

"For the reasons described above we really did not know how things would turn out when we started. Indeed, that was the whole reason for doing the study."


This is what they meant

"The model that we developed" was so we could be certain of the outcome..............

Yup. It was absolutely obvious how it would turn out, with the way they designed it. What a lie - "we really did not know".