Add new comment

Comment: 

The <em;Swiss Medical Weekly</em; published a detailed critique of Gmel et al's well-done longitudinal study of Swiss 20 year-old men that showed that (1) smokers who used e-cigarettes were less likely to quit cigarettes than smokers who didn't use e-cigarettes, and (2) nonsmokers who started with e-cigarettes were much more likely to be smoking a year later than those who did not use e-cigarettes.
&nbsp;
It is worth reading both the critique (available http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2016-14331/#REF15" target="_blank";here) and the response (available http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2016-14332/" target="_blank";here).
&nbsp;
The critique, by Philippe Poirson, a blogger on http://Vapolitique.blogspot.ch" target="_blank";Vapolitique.blogspot.ch and member of the Helvetic Vape association, makes all the same arguments that vaping enthusiasts, including the "experts" that they like to cite; Gmel et al nicely summarize these criticisms:
<blockquote;
a) that a study among young people has to support the same conclusions as studies among older people or in the general population at all ages;
b) that an epidemiological study on general use of e-cigarettes must reach the same conclusions as smoking cessation trials among heavy smokers;
c) that data need to be broken down (heavy smokers that at some point in time become daily vapers using 3rd generation vaping tanks) until the desired effect is found;
d) and that we should overload an article by plugging in all the many analyses that he would like to see.
&nbsp;
</blockquote;
Gmel and colleagues, in simple language, explain why these criticisms are, at the very least, not all that important.&nbsp; They also do a nice job of pointing out the extensive self-citation that e-cigarette enthusiasts engage in (while ignoring or dismissing anything that does not agree with their positions) and, importantly, the kid of non-substantive nit picking that they use to attack work they don't like.
&nbsp;
The contribution to this back-and-forth is valuiable well beyond the specifics of the one paper under discussion.&nbsp; Again, the critique is http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2016-14331/#REF15" target="_blank";here and the response is http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2016-14332/" target="_blank";here.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.