The "science" of e-cigarettes:gushing anecdotes from 11 self-selected vapers. This was actually published ascpjournal.org/content/8/1/5/…
— Simon Chapman (@SimonChapman6) March 8, 2013
He is referring to a study which correctly argues that e-cigs are a far better tool for quitting smoking than disastrously ineffective pharma products. You see, he hates e-cigs so very much.
According to former Tobacco Control Editor Chapman, no serious health journal would ever consider publishing research based on such a small group of subjects.
Unlike this one published last year in, err, Tobacco Control.
Methods The authors conducted 13 in-depth interviews with young adult social smokers aged between 19 and 25 years and used thematic analysis to interpret the transcripts.
Conclusions Participants strongly supported extending the smoke-free areas outside bars, a measure that would help decouple their alcohol-fuelled behaviours from the identity to which they aspire.That study - which is massively different to the one rubbished by Mr Chapman the sociologist - was conducted by botanist, zoologist and Beowulf expert Janet Hoek of New Zealand's Otago University.
The same Janet Hoek who has - for many years - called for processed food to be treated like it were tobacco.
Mr Chapman likes outdoor smoking bans very much so Hoek is therefore not a crank writing in a junk journal. D'you see?
Good. I'm glad we cleared that up.
15 comments:
I can never quite make it out, in Simon Chapman's Twitter image online, what is that long extended item sticking up where his middle finger would normally be? Is that his middle finger? It sure looks like it, other than the fact it is grotesquely long, given a quick glance and low resolution.
It's a cigarette. He thinks it's extremely clever, just as he thinks this is. Ha! :)
Clearly the threshold for statistically-significant sampling is 12. I never knew that.
hmm, chapman just blocked me and has started protecting his tweets, a blessing in disguise, it means that you'd already have to share is warped logic towards science to even see the drivel that spews forth from the man, without realising it he's done rational thought and discourse a great service.
Let's not forget this bit of outstanding scientific research...
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/more-great-evidence-that-plain.html
That image has no saving graces. Apart from the obvious copyright and trademark infringements.
Part of Simon Chapman's Australian Government NHMRC Grant 570869 (worth $351,00) is dependent on the failure of electronic cigarettes. A study, hosted on the website funded by the grant, wants to show that coldturkey-only method of tobacco smoking cessation is the best way for smokers to give up tobacco smoking. He is being funded to promote his ideology, not to help people cease smoking. If electronic cigarettes succeed, he will be less likely to fund further related projects. He stands to lose just as much (relatively) as Big Tobacco and Big Pharma if electronic cigarettes succeed. How can anyone take anything he says about electronic cigarettes seriously?
The study funded by grant 570869, depedent on the failure of electronic cigarettes : http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/quit-smoking-study
Simon Chapman's Ideology : http://i.imgur.com/JqiH6ZY.jpg
The grant is worth $351,000, not $35100
also, Simon Chapman often shows his ignorance in basic toxicology.
http://i.imgur.com/QI6kysF.jpg
I doubt he has ever heard of Paracelsus :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
Nicotine is not a poison. It is a chemical. A poison is characterized by it's concentration (dosage). At concentrations in ejuice vapor, nicotine is too low to be considered poison. Basically everything Simon Chapman has ever said regarding electronic cigarettes (denormalization, dual use, Big Tobacco conspiracy nut) can easily be debunked. He should just stick to Wind Farm debate, and stay the hell away from the ecig debate. He's obviously just trolling these days.
Don't forget the study that ASH Scotland used to recommend varenicline for people with mental illnesses - the study had tested varenicline on just 4 people: http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2011/04/the-new-anti-smoking-strategy-get-mentally-ill-smokers-to-kill-themselves-and-their-families.html
And there's this one conducted on 43 students from Bristol University campus aged between 21 and 28 to justify why plain packaging is needed.
Or this one which split up 48 15 year olds into 6 groups of 8, to justify.. plain packaging again. Where one of the conclusions to the anti-tobacco funded research was, and I kid you not, was there was "generally little awareness of [...] tobacco packaging" among the 48 15 year olds.
Indeed. :)
Well of course. You don't think these people actually want to hear opposing opinions, do you? ;)
Ha! Incredible.
They're not uncommon, I remember one in the past few months drawing on just 19 people, and quoted by the BBC IIRC.
When it comes to epidemiology, even studies with thousands of participants are often of little value because no matter how clever the analysis, the start point is a bunch of humans responding to questions based on their limited powers of recall and the mood that they are in at the time. Personally I tend to lie deliberately in all surveys and I recommend that everyone else does the same. Especially if some nosy receptionist or bureaucrat at the doctors /dentists /car wash starts asking lifestyle questions. I also really enjoy lying to people performing marketing surveys by phone.
Post a Comment