This edition of rant covers:
At first I thought Stanton Glantz beard got a life of its own. Like it had somehow separated from its owner and opened its own twitter account from where it was now dispensing sage advice to the less experienced.
Joking aside, if there is one thought that perfectly sums up the activity of public health posers on social networks, this is it. "Ruth you are talking with a vaping advocate", says the beard, righteously taken aback by the naiveté of the said Ruth (Malone).
She is a professor of Nursing and Public Health who hasn't blocked legions of vapers by now, unlike the Nestor of public health conversation, her Australian colleague, Simon Chapman. She even tweets back and forth with some of them. The horror!
Anyway, The Beard here considers it a terrible mistake. Because lobbying for "public interests", whatever it may be in the world of The Beard&co, includes only preaching on social networks. Public is supposed to applaud. Non-applauding public should be ignored. Inquisitive public should be blocked. So The Beard&co can lobby on in peace and harmony.
For public interests. Sure.
Have you ever asked yourselves why the results of studies and research carried out by DrFarsalinos and his team are much clearer to us non-scientists than results obtained by many others? The answer is simple - DrFarsalinos et al actually recruit smokers/vapers as participants in their studies on smoking/vaping.
Another thing - they feel free to be clear to the public about their findings. No need to wrap it up in excessive scientific jargon when explaining it to the non-scientists. Because they are telling the truth and using the right methods to reach it.
Unlike some who just can't leave poor mice and robots alone, so no wonder the results they get are a parody of science. Speaking about parody, here's my take on The New York Times heading for "The Formaldehyde in Your E-cigs" by Joseph G. Allen.
Dr. Allen is an assistant professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, actually just another one who loves to delve into vaping as a hobby, with no vapers in sight. Instead of burning hundreds of good coils by quasi simulation of vaping, and all that with wrong parameters, why don't such scientists engage folks who vape on regular basis, you may wonder.
Clive Bates has been tireless in deglantzing all that drivel, so this is from his 2015 article Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies It relates to "Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols" published in New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that DrAllen is talking about.
A note to Dr.Allen: if something requires x degrees and they burn it at twice as high temperature, their results are bogus, Your Harvard Highness. How the heck did you all miss that. Even I wouldn't have although there's no scientific bone in my body.
And now, after citing the failed study, this is your conclusion:
Equally fair? EQUALLY FAIR?
Let's set aside for a moment that the adherents to anti-smoking and anti-vaping religion among public health scientists (and anyone who feels like that, including sociologists and aerospace engineers ) may have a problem with e-cig because it contains the word "cig" in it.
Or it's just that vaping renders most of public health arena practically useless. It also shows how methods they've been advocating are nothing but big flops which, ipso facto, makes them the biggest one.
Of course, this group, although funded by tax payers, Big Pharma and who knows who else, loves to do what Dr Allen did in his article: try to dispute opponents' logical complaints by calling them "hired guns". I suppose his own research is funded by the Good Fairy. Also, his "being hired by anyone" doesn't count at all because his salary just falls from the skies.
All that aside, the NEJM formaldehyde study was replicated by DrFarsalinos and here's the presentation and two slides.
Now this opinion piece has other pearls from the usual anti-vaping repertoire - diacetyl in e-cigs that may lead to popcorn-lung (here debunked by Farsalinos), gateway theory (Researchers call for retraction of Glantz gateway research paper). One almost wonders why he didn't include antifreeze theory or harm from second-hand vaping. Maybe he's saving it for the next time.
Back to E-cigarette Today