Doodlebug
Postman
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2012
- Messages
- 126
[h=2]Are you fed up with seeing headlines like this…[/h][h=1]Electronic cigarettes ‘could damage your lungs’ as they cause less oxygen to be absorbed by the blood[/h][h=1]E-CIGARETTES ‘CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH’[/h][h=1]Experts Warn Electronic Cigarettes Can Damage Lungs[/h][h=2]…when you know they really mean this?[/h][h=1]Pseudo-scientists ‘could damage your lungs’ as they cause inaccurate information to be spewed by the press[/h][h=1]JUNK SCIENTISTS ‘CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH’[/h][h=1]Experts Warn Unethical Junk Science Can Damage Lungs[/h][h=1]
[/h]In fact, we are SO sick of reading this rubbish that we have today written to the three publications responsible for the headlines we mention. All three letters are also available from our website:
Mail Online
Express.co.uk
Huffington Post
These publications reported ‘news’ from a press conference given by Professor Gratziou, presenting her recent study into the effects of vaping on the lungs. If the press had run away and created these ridiculous headlines by themselves, that would have been bad enough, but it seems the originator for the total misrepresentation of this unpublished research was Professor Gratziou herself. Her own organisation, the European Respiratory Society, issued a press release about the research entitled ‘Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs’.
There’s just one problem: this is NOT what the research found.
It is, however, an easy way to trick journalists (who are reliably too lazy to check the facts) and credulous fools into thinking that this was indeed what her study determined. And if that HAD been the case, then my goodness, somebody better start warning the public about this dangerous health crisis!
The truth, not surprisingly, is rather different. Examination of Professor Gratziou’s abstract (her actual study having never been published or peer reviewed, so not available for analysis) indicates that she has, in fact, discovered something entirely different from what has been reported.
We could suggest a few alternative titles for her press release:
[h=1]‘Researchers confirm that e-cigarettes have a temporary effect on the lungs.’[/h][h=1]‘Research confirms that e-cigarettes do not cause immediate problems for COPD and asthma sufferers.’[/h][h=1]‘Research confirms that it is possible to find observable effects by taking some measurements.’[/h][h=1]‘Experts cherry pick which things to check, then flagrantly disregard what they found when reporting results.’[/h]I could go on, but you get the idea. Perhaps what it comes down to is:
[h=1]‘Experts recommend that smokers should abandon hope and accept their fate’[/h]when what we would all rather see is:
[h=1]‘Junk scientists jailed for misrepresenting scientific research findings, and sentencing 95% of smokers to death’[/h]but maybe that is too much to hope for.
ECITA would welcome more research into the long-term effects of the use of electronic cigarettes, provided that it is carried out in a scientifically-rigorous fashion, and reported in a meaningful way. We would not endorse the ‘covering-up’ of any bad news, but equally, would expect promising results to be accurately reported.
What Professor Gratziou’s research appears to have discovered – and thank goodness she did this study, otherwise we might never have known! – is that inhaling vapour has an effect on the lungs.
Wow! Are you as relieved as I am to have this confirmed by scientific research?
It would be pretty surprising if it didn’t, really. Nor is this the first time this effect has been noted. Similar research (of similar ‘quality’) has already been done.
What is new is the ‘translation’ of “has a measurable effect that lasts ten minutes” into “can cause immediate harm”.
We anticipate that when (or perhaps, if) Professor Gratziou publishes her study, the results will be reported more truthfully, but this will (of course) not hit the headlines.
This is a cynical and dishonest attempt to grab the headlines with statements which are unproven (and unprovable) by her own research, in order to promote her own agenda.
As if this ‘science by press release’ – distorting her results to such an extent that she has effectively lied – were not bad enough, this so-called ‘expert’ then revealed her true agenda:
“We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes.”
A layman would not struggle to see that to stop inhaling the smoke given off by burning leaves, in favour of inhaling a vapour proven to contain lower levels of harmful chemicals, is “safer”. Why is a purported ‘expert’, a member of the European Respiratory Society, incapable of realising this?
The answer came when she confirmed where her true allegiance lies:
“The ERS recommends following effective smoking cessation treatment guidelines based on clinical evidence which do not advocate the use of such products.”
So, the lead author on a study funded by Pfizer into varenicline (marketed as Chantix and Champix) recommends that smokers stick to products which have been repeatedly shown to be ineffective, and appears not to have realised that “clinical evidence” would “not advocate the use of” varenicline, since it has been found to cause a truly terrifying raft of serious neuropsychiatric events.
[h=1]The lies must stop, or many millions will die before their time.[/h]
More...
[/h]In fact, we are SO sick of reading this rubbish that we have today written to the three publications responsible for the headlines we mention. All three letters are also available from our website:Mail Online
Express.co.uk
Huffington Post
These publications reported ‘news’ from a press conference given by Professor Gratziou, presenting her recent study into the effects of vaping on the lungs. If the press had run away and created these ridiculous headlines by themselves, that would have been bad enough, but it seems the originator for the total misrepresentation of this unpublished research was Professor Gratziou herself. Her own organisation, the European Respiratory Society, issued a press release about the research entitled ‘Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs’.
There’s just one problem: this is NOT what the research found.
It is, however, an easy way to trick journalists (who are reliably too lazy to check the facts) and credulous fools into thinking that this was indeed what her study determined. And if that HAD been the case, then my goodness, somebody better start warning the public about this dangerous health crisis!
The truth, not surprisingly, is rather different. Examination of Professor Gratziou’s abstract (her actual study having never been published or peer reviewed, so not available for analysis) indicates that she has, in fact, discovered something entirely different from what has been reported.
We could suggest a few alternative titles for her press release:
[h=1]‘Researchers confirm that e-cigarettes have a temporary effect on the lungs.’[/h][h=1]‘Research confirms that e-cigarettes do not cause immediate problems for COPD and asthma sufferers.’[/h][h=1]‘Research confirms that it is possible to find observable effects by taking some measurements.’[/h][h=1]‘Experts cherry pick which things to check, then flagrantly disregard what they found when reporting results.’[/h]I could go on, but you get the idea. Perhaps what it comes down to is:
[h=1]‘Experts recommend that smokers should abandon hope and accept their fate’[/h]when what we would all rather see is:
[h=1]‘Junk scientists jailed for misrepresenting scientific research findings, and sentencing 95% of smokers to death’[/h]but maybe that is too much to hope for.
ECITA would welcome more research into the long-term effects of the use of electronic cigarettes, provided that it is carried out in a scientifically-rigorous fashion, and reported in a meaningful way. We would not endorse the ‘covering-up’ of any bad news, but equally, would expect promising results to be accurately reported.
What Professor Gratziou’s research appears to have discovered – and thank goodness she did this study, otherwise we might never have known! – is that inhaling vapour has an effect on the lungs.
Wow! Are you as relieved as I am to have this confirmed by scientific research?
It would be pretty surprising if it didn’t, really. Nor is this the first time this effect has been noted. Similar research (of similar ‘quality’) has already been done.
What is new is the ‘translation’ of “has a measurable effect that lasts ten minutes” into “can cause immediate harm”.
We anticipate that when (or perhaps, if) Professor Gratziou publishes her study, the results will be reported more truthfully, but this will (of course) not hit the headlines.
This is a cynical and dishonest attempt to grab the headlines with statements which are unproven (and unprovable) by her own research, in order to promote her own agenda.
As if this ‘science by press release’ – distorting her results to such an extent that she has effectively lied – were not bad enough, this so-called ‘expert’ then revealed her true agenda:
“We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes.”
A layman would not struggle to see that to stop inhaling the smoke given off by burning leaves, in favour of inhaling a vapour proven to contain lower levels of harmful chemicals, is “safer”. Why is a purported ‘expert’, a member of the European Respiratory Society, incapable of realising this?
The answer came when she confirmed where her true allegiance lies:
“The ERS recommends following effective smoking cessation treatment guidelines based on clinical evidence which do not advocate the use of such products.”
So, the lead author on a study funded by Pfizer into varenicline (marketed as Chantix and Champix) recommends that smokers stick to products which have been repeatedly shown to be ineffective, and appears not to have realised that “clinical evidence” would “not advocate the use of” varenicline, since it has been found to cause a truly terrifying raft of serious neuropsychiatric events.
[h=1]The lies must stop, or many millions will die before their time.[/h]
More...
