Wall St. Jrnl invites ANTZ Ling and THR endorser Rose to debate vaping

[Bill Godshall]

The Wall Street Journal invited DHHS funded vapor prohibitionist Pam Ling (who works with Glantz at UCSF) and NRT researcher Jed Rose (who endorses vaping, but is not an activist) to write pro/con articles on whether vaping is effective (or ineffective) for helping people quit smoking. It was the front cover of the Health Care section of Mondays' WSJ.
Are E-Cigarettes a Healthy Way to Quit Smoking?

Not sure if the article is behind a paywall (as I'm a subscriber, and have already posted comments), so I'll summarize.

While Rose claimed e-cigarettes "appear", "might", and "have potential to" be effective for helping some smokers quit, he failed to point out that several million vapers have already quit smoking. Unfortunately, he also incorrectly claimed that a "randomized clinical trial" is the "gold-standard scientific method" of determining the effectiveness of vapor products, and that "many more years of studies" are needed before we'll know.

Meanwhile, Pam Linge repeatedly and falsely claimed there's no evidence e-cigarettes have ever helped anyone quit smoking, while citing a RCT study (to justify her lies) that found first generation e-cigarettes were slightly more effective than Big Pharma NRT for smoking cessation.

Mike Siegel highlighted Ling's deceitful lies and hypocrisy at
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Vaping Opponent's Bias Revealed in Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

 

[nicnik]

The Wall Street Journal invited DHHS funded vapor prohibitionist Pam Ling (who works with Glantz at UCSF) and NRT researcher Jed Rose (who endorses vaping, but is not an activist) to write pro/con articles on whether vaping is effective (or ineffective) for helping people quit smoking. It was the front cover of the Health Care section of Mondays' WSJ.
Are E-Cigarettes a Healthy Way to Quit Smoking?

Not sure if the article is behind a paywall (as I'm a subscriber, and have already posted comments), so I'll summarize.

No paywall, at least as of right now. Not the greatest read. Your summary is good, should anyone wish to skip it.

 

[OldBatty]

Bill, your second comment on the article "Pam Ling cites a RCT study finding that e-cigarettes were more effective than Big Pharma's NRT for helping smokers quit smoking to justify her lie claiming there is no evidence e-cigarettes can help smokers quit smoking." needs an addendum. The slight edge indicates cigalikes second or third generation hardware rates would be much higher. Not registered there or I would do it.

 

[Painter_]

What always amazes me with all of the vaping articles regardless of if they are pro or anti is the level of knowledge the vapers show in their rebuttals compared to the anti vaper group.

 

[nicnik]

What always amazes me with all of the vaping articles regardless of if they are pro or anti is the level of knowledge the vapers show in their rebuttals compared to the anti vaper group.

One of the debaters is pretty well informed. The other is a professional misinformer.

 

[Steamix]

Seems Mr. Rose is fishing for funding, for a nice cushy economical niche.

Cuz there is lots of interest that would like to see vaping buried under 'many more years of studies'.
As long as it's 'studied', one can always claim 'we don't know' or 'we don't know enough yet' and keep it at arms length.

That's a fairly common ploy in politics: Pass it on to some 'expert panel' and make sure that at least some of the 'experts' are opposed to anything the other 'experts' are saying.

There is plenty of indications that the scientific community can move very fast if the pressure is on :
Ebola, Zika, and the whole alphanumerical soup of nasty little viruses from faraway places that can wreak havoc if not contained. Lo and behold, rapid mass testing was made available in a few months...

 

[Stubby]

Something to keep in mind with this is that RCT's are notoriously bad with studying consumer preferences. There are so many variables that any results are essentially worthless. Both of these people, including Seigel, have been locked in there ivory towers for much to long. They have forgotten that most of science doesn't take place in the laboratory under artificial conditions, but in observing the real world.

Population studies are much better, and with millions vaping it would be relatively easy to do, and much cheaper. Michael Siegel, who unfortunately has become the darling of many in the vaping community (hint, he is the face of the somewhat tolerant tobacco control, but make no mistake, he is tobacco control and not to be trusted), is just as misinformed as the worst of them when it comes to RCT's. He is a believer that RCT's can predict consumer choices despite all evidence to the contrary.

They have created an artificial debate which doesn't exist in the real world, and has no significance.

 

[bobwho77]

What always amazes me with all of the vaping articles regardless of if they are pro or anti is the level of knowledge the vapers show in their rebuttals compared to the anti vaper group.

To be fair, how much would you expect an anti-drinking zealot to know about beer and wine?
Same difference.

 

[Belushi]

Sounds like vaping wins the debate. Now what????