E-cigs: more harm or more good? | Star Tribune
Looks like they're looking for vapers to participate in the study, as well.
Looks like they're looking for vapers to participate in the study, as well.
University of Minnesota starting e-cig study
- Thread starter Oxtail
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yay! The more the merrier I say. Too little has been scientifically established on vaping. Not that our own personal experiences account for nothing but I can't wait for the lumbering behemoth of the scientific community to start gaining some momentum on the subject.
i'm trying to volunteer but cant seem to get through the maze of there
automated phone system.
regards
mike
automated phone system.
regards
mike
Sorry if I'm being a buzzkill, but I don't hold out much hope for this study.
She's not asking "are these products toxic?" but "how toxic are they?" Evidently she's already decided they're toxic... And the wild wild west thingy? Sound familiar? And from her bio:
It also sounds like she has TCORS grants (all of her current grants are from NIH):
She's not asking "are these products toxic?" but "how toxic are they?" Evidently she's already decided they're toxic... And the wild wild west thingy? Sound familiar? And from her bio:
It also sounds like she has TCORS grants (all of her current grants are from NIH):
I agree with Ania. From what I read it sounds like, "we are going to keep looking at these things until we find something bad". And okay, if there's something bad we need to know, but if you are going into a study determined to find the worst it clouds your interpretation of what you do find.
Mike: If you do get in, try to let them know that switching to a non-tobacco flavor helps to extinguish any appreciation for the taste of smoke. At least that has been my experience.
I commented:
Anyone who says "the flavored ones are marketed towards kids" has a very clean mind
I just want to ask them if they enjoy their unflavored Ensure for breakfast, lunch and dinner? I know that they are all over 18 and should have lost their taste buds like they assume we have.
It doesn't bother me if they go in expecting to find all sorts of crazy toxins. As long as they're not faking results, I welcome these studies. Especially when they're done by large research universities and not just some lab paid for by a drug company.
They don't have to fake results. Option #1: Having decided on what results they want, they simply design the study so that it will give them those results. (For instance, you can word questions on a questionnaire to elicit the answers you want.) Option #2: Take actual results and manipulate the statistics to give the appearance of the results you want.
Easypeazy, ANTZ have been doing it for decades.
See CDC results from their "kids are using more e-cigarettes we must save the children BS".
Option #3- use somewhat reasonable methodology, but draw conclusions that are completely unsupported by the data. See FDA 2009 or Glanz 20xx.
This is also known as scientific paper by press release, then the public knows it's bad and no further discussion or study is needed. 30 years later we are finding out they lied-see second hand smoke. It may stink but it won't kill you.
Last edited:
From the news story:
"'Although the majority of the products don’t contain toxicants that are cancer-causing, there are a few that do,” [Hatsukami] said. “There is a lot of variability out there.'"
This woman either has access to information that no one else does, or she's referencing long since discredited propaganda. I'm betting on option two.
Yeah, the bios are always morbidly amusing. Here's a revealing passage:
"She has also conducted research in the area of smokeless tobacco. Her most recent research has primarily been focused on developing methods and measures to evaluate tobacco products and she has led an effort to develop a trandisciplinary team (both institutionally and nationally) around this topic. She has also concentrated her efforts on exploring and developing the science base for policies that might reduce tobacco-caused death and disease such as reducing the toxicity and nicotine in tobacco products."
Bolding mine. I'd be interested to know what her conclusions were about smokeless tobacco, certain varieties of which we know to be nearly harmless, and which we know to be responsible for Sweden's unparalleled success in reducing its population's tobacco-related risk factors. The note about policies is worrisome; it sure sounds like a polite way of saying that Hatsukami's looking for evidence to justify policies (read: conclusions) she already supports -- an approach that runs directly counter to the scientific method.
The coup de grace is the note on nicotine, which implies that Hatsukami regards nicotine as little better than a toxicant; she believes reducing nicotine levels is an end in itself. That assertion is thrown in casually, as if it were beyond dispute.
Seems like typical political hackery, but hey, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised by the results of this particular study. Keep your expectations low, as the saying goes.
Last edited:
This isn't a statistics survey where they ask the people questions.
"Researchers will collect blood, urine and saliva samples from at least 25 smokers who use only e-cigarettes and at least 25 who use them with traditional cigarettes."
If we're not willing to embrace studies like this, it just looks like we have something to hide. How is the public ever going to feel safe around e-cigs when e-cig proponents trash scientific studies before they're even done?
The problem is that this researcher has already shown an agenda, she has a history as she so states. Get a researcher without the baggage she carries and I don't think anyone in the vaping community would mind a study. Also the study cannot be financed by BT, BP or the Vaping industry, hands off all around. Let the cards fall as they may without outside interference.
The studies that can help our cause the most are exactly those by researchers who went in expecting to find toxins and not finding them.
Again, this is a scientific study. The methodology and results will be published with hard data obtained through lab experiments. To be accepted as credible, the results will have to be reproducible.
If there's a problem with the methodology when it's described in detail, we can discuss that.
Right now all I'm seeing are a bunch of people who won't be happy with any study done by a researcher who's not totally pro-vaping to begin with.
Understandable as they won't accept any study that is done by someone who's anti vaping. The study might produce results that we would be delighted with. The press release won't, if the researcher has a end in mind beginning the study.
I'm all for this study and any others, we need as many as possible. What we need also is honest reporting of the findings and no more scare headlines implying something that isn't in the results or even addressed by the study. Like happened with the CDC one.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period" comes to mind.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
