Perhaps then, it should have been made clear that there might be some clinical trials to back up that "press release." Someone other than yourself actually went as far to say there was no such trials ..... I rest my case.
Vaping vs Smoking
- Thread starter Exchaner
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Perhaps then, it should have been made clear that there might be some clinical trials to back up that "press release." Someone other than yourself actually went as far to say there was no such trials ..... I rest my case.
Are you aware of some trials? Are you aware of any place where the methodology used and the actual results have been made available?
ETA: If, at some point, the study actually is made public, I doubt I will have the knowledge to determine whether or not it is valid. I will leave that up to those who are actually qualified. I do have some knowledge of the scientific method, and I understand sampling and statistical analysis.
Q
You have stated several times that you are open to negative reports, unlike so many in this forum. Quick question on the other side of this coin: do you bring that same open mindedness to positive reports? What are your thoughts on the report from Public Health England that states vaping is 95% safer than smoking? Or have you still not read it yet?
Yes I do bring the same open mindedness to positive reports, and do agree with some of the findings. That much should be clear from my previous posts. I have not had time to read the report you are referring to - too busy on this thread fending off some of the distortions/misrepresentations.
Last edited:
I agree you've been quite busy. One thing that that report asserts is that most of the 5% risk remaining is to account for the unknowns of the effects of long term vaping. So they believe that the actual risks are much lower than that. It's a really good read - highly recommended if you are "always looking for an excuse that vaping is safer than smoking" as you stated in your very first post. It will give you a great excuse!
I read the articles and it is suffering from some of the very flaws for which the OP report is being criticized in this thread. It is akin to a press release if you will - no reason given for the conclusions, no data to back up the findings/opinions. I agree with some of the conclusions, but it is far from a rigorous report. One thing I am highly curious about : How did they come up with the 95% figure, and where is the data to back it up?
If you only went to the page linked, that IS a press release. Follow the link in the first paragraph that says Expert Independent Evidence Review, that will take you to a page with links to the actual report as well as supporting documentation.
Or here's a link to the actual report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...mmissioned_by_Public_Health_England_FINAL.pdf
Thanks, will read the report, but there is probably nothing in it that I did not already know. Hard to believe we filled up 18 pages in this thread on things that are basically common knowledge.
Last edited:
It is based more or less on this "study" :
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/360220
Basically a made up number according to :
The comparative risk of e-cigarettes -- numbers, nonsense, and innumeracy
And here's their short explanation of it
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf
I am not sure if I fully understand all the assumptions and/or arguments put forth in the various links you two have provided. Even if I did, it would take another 20 pages of discussions to debate their merits - something I am not prepared for at the moment. Perhaps another time. For now, I need to recover from the last 18 pages of contentious debates 
Yes, it is pretty difficult to quantify risk, and that 95% figure came under fire even from staunchly pro-vaping people (see Mazinny's second link). However, these are scientists we're talking about here, and in the past while defending the credibility of the article from your original post, you seem to put a lot of stock in that.
In reading the responses to the MPE article from the TC folks, it seemed as though there are two primary objections: 1 - that the 95% figure is pulled from the air (which has some legitimacy), and 2 - that the people who developed the report are biased and have COIs (which is laughable given the COI issues that have popped up, or been covered up by the other camp). Given that these are the two biggest objections (at least that I'm aware of), it seems to me that the report has been holding up fairly well under fire.
I have no idea what you are referring to. The only article I have defended has been the one in the OP against BIASED attacks. As to putting stock in any report, it is not my nature to accept anything blindly - including the OP. I certainly do not put stock in any report that arbitrarily assigns a 95% number to something that might be un-quantifiable given our present knowledge.
The takeaway of the report is not the 95%, it's that they didn't find any significant health threats from vaping, including the more recent(at the time) studies that supposedly showed possible harms from vaping. Sometimes you have to look beyond the headlines.
To use a movie quote.
"OK, 95%, 'cause I know certainty freaks you guys out, but it's 100." - Maya, Zero Dark Thirty
To use a movie quote.
"OK, 95%, 'cause I know certainty freaks you guys out, but it's 100." - Maya, Zero Dark Thirty
What biased attacks have there been? One thing you seem to object to is calling this a press release. My contention is that without the actual study information, that is all this is. I'm not saying they didn't actually perform the tests that they say they did, but they have not published an actual study.
[QUOTE="In reading the responses to the MPE article from the TC folks, it seemed as though there are two primary objections: 1 - that the 95% figure is pulled from the air (which has some legitimacy), and 2 - that the people who developed the report are biased and have COIs (which is laughable given the COI issues that have popped up, or been covered up by the other camp). Given that these are the two biggest objections (at least that I'm aware of), it seems to me that the report has been holding up fairly well under fire.[/QUOTE]
I am under the impression the 95% figure was their conservative estimate as posted more than once on ECF. Once one reaches the 97 percentile in harm reduction things such as
margin of error typically 2 to 3% get confusing. It would be hard to convince some that
something is 103% safer than another thing. I think they picked 95% as a number that would
be hard to refute without some real compelling data. This is still a very good number in as
much if true shows vaping as a concept and practical exercise is so much more
inherently safe when compared to smoking that only minor regulatory oversight would be
necessary if in fact if needed at all.
I personally believe and do not understand why it is so hard to understand that
the whole concept of e-juice and the hardware we use is inherently safe from
production to sale by the very nature of the raw materials in juice to the simplicity
of design of one's basic PV. Don't put rat poison in the juice and understand the raw
power contained in your basic 18650. The really outstanding thing about the evolution
of the industry is most of the advances have been made by the very users of the products
and,not by private capital or tax money. This is a core reason though not stated that
the Big Boy's et al are have their undies in a bunch. It works,It's safer than smoking to
an extent that any health related concerns either do not exist and if they did amount
to little or nothing right now and are likely to remain trivial into the future.
All they see is the free money to be made controlling its commercial use and
optimizing its medicinal benefits. Of course depending on the deeming regs and
further regulations how far they go is anyone's guess. I myself am a doom and
gloomer.(nasty job but,someone's got to do it) The only thing I am reasonably
certain about is we vapers and those in the industry that have made vaping
what it is today will have little to do with the future of vaping if things get out
of hand.
Regards
Mike
I am under the impression the 95% figure was their conservative estimate as posted more than once on ECF. Once one reaches the 97 percentile in harm reduction things such as
margin of error typically 2 to 3% get confusing. It would be hard to convince some that
something is 103% safer than another thing. I think they picked 95% as a number that would
be hard to refute without some real compelling data. This is still a very good number in as
much if true shows vaping as a concept and practical exercise is so much more
inherently safe when compared to smoking that only minor regulatory oversight would be
necessary if in fact if needed at all.
I personally believe and do not understand why it is so hard to understand that
the whole concept of e-juice and the hardware we use is inherently safe from
production to sale by the very nature of the raw materials in juice to the simplicity
of design of one's basic PV. Don't put rat poison in the juice and understand the raw
power contained in your basic 18650. The really outstanding thing about the evolution
of the industry is most of the advances have been made by the very users of the products
and,not by private capital or tax money. This is a core reason though not stated that
the Big Boy's et al are have their undies in a bunch. It works,It's safer than smoking to
an extent that any health related concerns either do not exist and if they did amount
to little or nothing right now and are likely to remain trivial into the future.
All they see is the free money to be made controlling its commercial use and
optimizing its medicinal benefits. Of course depending on the deeming regs and
further regulations how far they go is anyone's guess. I myself am a doom and
gloomer.(nasty job but,someone's got to do it) The only thing I am reasonably
certain about is we vapers and those in the industry that have made vaping
what it is today will have little to do with the future of vaping if things get out
of hand.
Regards
Mike
Agreed with Lessifer and Skoony above. I'd also like to point out that you have quickly dismissed this report, as you have accused so many on this forum of doing to your original post, without having actually read it. This isn't in alignment with your self-declared open mindedness, nor your original statement that you always seek an excuse that vaping is safer than smoking. Not trying to attack the poster here, but consistency can be a good thing.
They did not find any threats - short term. And no, I was not referring to yourself in regards to biased attacks. The one that stands out, is the person who interpreted the word "potential" as meaning "impossible" implying that no such possibility exists ..... Absurd !!
Last edited:
I quickly dismissed it because I had only read the summary of the report unaware there was a section that explained the methodology. I do not however put too much stock in this report - or the OP report - because of their short term nature. One big difference between them is that the OP is a clinical study while the other is statistical in nature- subject to interpretation as to the data. In regards to short term vs long term, it takes years for ill effects to become apparent. e.g. you do not develop emphysema over night - or even in a couple of years.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked