Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree12Likes
  • 7 Post By Vapers Nightly News
  • 3 Post By Stoney
  • 2 Post By mavinry4

Thread: On Individual Testimonies and Evidence

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    On Individual Testimonies and Evidence

    Yesterday Professors Micheal Siegel and Carl V Phillips alerted us about Professor Stan Glantz, one of America's most influential anti-vaping activists, who has begun censoring from his blog, individual's testimonies on their use of electronic cigarettes and how they have managed to free themselves from tobacco smoke completely. Glantz's argument is that since there is no clinical evidence that electronic cigarettes are an effective tobacco smoking cessation aid, he will essentially ignore individual testimonies. It was speculated (by Mav) that Glantz, being involved in trying to ban tobacco smoking from Hollywood movies, sees vaping as a threat to his agenda due to vaping's appearance, and Glantz is merely exploiting the electronic cigarette industry's inability to fund a clinical trial at this time.

    Both Siegel and Phillips have continued with their critisism of Glantz today, emphasising the importance of individual testimonies. This comes during the last stages that the FDA will be accepting public submissions which will be used as input for a report to Congress, required by the Tobacco Act.

    Siegel notes that Glantz's choice to censor people's testimonies in his comment section would be;

    "tantamount to [Siegel himself] deleting all comments from smokers who tried to use electronic cigarettes but failed.".
    He continues;

    "Stan is essentially admitting that his blog is not about presenting an objective evaluation of the scientific evidence but instead, is about spouting tobacco control propaganda. That's fine - it's certainly his prerogative to use his blog as a propaganda instrument. However, he should stop pretending that he is an objective scientist and that his blog is either objective or science-based."
    Siegel also makes note of a quote by Phillips in Phillip's article yesterday;

    "Glantz’s claim that these posts are not informative brings us to his profound lack of understanding of the science he claims expertise in. ... Those testimonials are the real scientific evidence, not the vague statistics that Glantz proposes collecting. Any real scientist would recognize this. It turns out that the statistics he wants to collect offer us little or no information about what we want to know — what switchers would have done without e-cigarettes. It is that kind of information that is not scientifically useful. The testimonials, on the other hand, are a rich source of scientific information about smokers who did not quit (they would probably say “could not quit”) until they found e-cigarettes. These testimonials represent useful scientific experiments."
    In Phillips' continued response to this topic, he notes that ;

    "...the observation that a single reported example of an exploding e-cigarette battery or contamination of the e-cigarette liquid is considered by the anti-harm-reduction activists to be true and worth repeatedly reporting. So obviously they do understand the concept that a single observation is often adequate scientific evidence of a particular claim". "This argues in favor of the explanation that they are consciously lying when they deny the usefulness of personal success stories of how e-cigarettes caused someone to quit smoking"
    This was clearly seen in the ASH (US) article posted by Ryxna yesterday. As noted by MrsGruffy ; "they're keen to use a lack of scientific evidence to invalidate ecigarettes as an alternative to tobacco, yet when it comes to the potential risks of ecigarettes, cite only anecdotal information", and further by SmokeHead ; "They claim there is no scientific evidence that supports e-cigs being 'safe and effective', but then they're quite happy to provide anecdotal accounts from alleged 'bystanders' who claimed the nicotine in the secondhand vapour made them nauseous. You can't have it both ways".

    Individual testimonies are important and it raises the question as to how many people have to claim that a product does work before the Government backs off from banning it. For example, recently the Kardashian QuickTrim weight-loss pills were banned by the TGA due to a court case in the US being fought by customers claiming they were promoting an 'ineffective' product. If there had been more than 2 million individual testimonies in the US alone claiming that the product was effective in weightloss, would that product still be on our shelves?

    But it is a depressing thought that when we hear about situations whereby the Government pretends to listen to public, meanwhile deciding before hand the action they will take. For example, as SAS explained, The TGA introduce bans on substances by;

    First they annouce what they plan to change and ask for formal comments from stake-holders and the public. They then meet to discuss the issue again, ignore what the public has said, and go ahead anyway.
    It's also enraging when those products that are approved by our Government are recorded, by the Government, to cause harm and be ineffective.

    Clinical studies are in fact being conducted on electronic cigarettes, but I am unsure what exactly is being tested. They may be using 510 batteries, they may be using pre-filled cartomisers, and if so, that may not qualify nicotine containing liquids, or other types of batteries and delivery cartirdiges, even if (when) positive results come out of it.

    For now, aside from studies that show the liquids contain only miniscule amounts of toxins, and a few medical studies on a small sample number of patients, inidividual testimonies are perhaps the strongest evidence we have. But we have a lot of it, so it may be wise to watch the TGA's time table, and make sure our voices are heard, even if the politicians are choosing to ignore us.
    Last edited by Vapers Nightly News; 17-01-13 at 07:57 PM. Reason: formatting/spelling - content not altered.
    margyb, Old Dog, sperex and 4 others like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Clagiraba, Queensland
    damn good post this.
    These people should be held accountable and if shown to be biased or paid off, ignored.
    In order of useful: Provari V2 and V1, vamo, eGo twist, Katana v3, Hex, Orion v2, LavaTube, eGo x 6, VMAX, 510N, Tick V2, Tick V1, noEgo 18650, noEgo 14650 , Indulgence x 2, 905 6v mod, KR808D

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    There is actually quite more to Carl V Phillip's post today, regarding the definition of placebo effect which he elaborates on quite extensively. The dicussion is very long. I've been discussing with him about throat hit experiments in the comment section. I'll raise the topic about it either here or in a new discussion

    Glantz’s tenuous grasp of science (cont) | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

    (very late, I need sleep).
    margyb and Vapes of Groth 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 © 2018 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 03:11 AM.