Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree10Likes
  • 7 Post By marty
  • 3 Post By marty

Thread: Pro-ecig scientists write 2nd Letter to WHO

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793

    Pro-ecig scientists write 2nd Letter to WHO

    Counteracting all the lies given by Stan Glantz.

    Defending proper science and evidence: our second letter to the WHO, exposing mis-presentation of evidence in the Glantz letter

    Coral Gartner was not on the signatory list this time, but I just noticed this;

    Note: this comment is endorsed by all the original signatories of the letter to Dr Chan of 26 May who were contactable and available to review this document by 26 June 2014. Please see the original letter for affiliations.
    Last edited by marty; 03-07-14 at 12:23 AM. Reason: added in last quote

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    Latest attempt to keep the debate on ecigs honest.

    Glantz letter to WHO

    On 26 May 2014, fifty three specialists in nicotine science and public health policy wrote to Dr Margaret Chan, Director General of the WHO to argue that tobacco harm reduction is part of the solution to the burden of smoking related disease and requires a careful and evidence based approach to its regulation. This letter received global media coverage.

    full details | letter PDF | press coverage .

    In response, Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco organized an alternative letter making a number of criticisms of the first letter and attempting a scientific critique of e-cigarettes.

    As a respected authority, it is important that WHO as an organisation and its individual staff take a dispassionate view of scientific evidence presented from any source.

    On 26 June, the authors of the original letter wrote back to WHO indicating that many points in the Glantz letter are without scientific foundation and may be misleading to policy-makers or non-specialists if read uncritically. Their commentary identifies the more concerning errors of fact and interpretation in Professor Glantz’s letter, and explain why the citations and arguments used do not support the conclusions drawn. The letter text is set out below – and available as a PDF.
    lozza 82, AstroBoy and Vaporific like this.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 12:51 AM.