"A total of 87 clinical trials were identified, of which only seven were related to smoking cessation through vaping as a form of treatment. "
Had to scrape the pubmed barrel pretty deep for that one.
Meta analysis is best done by Cochrane, and they see a slight to mild effect, but indicate huge bias in the CTs. Also the conflicts sections is three pages long as the number of MDs running these studies funded by Vape companies is hilarious.
I gotta be honest with you chief if I was a scientist, trying to establish a point. And I had the choice between a meta-analysis and running an actual study…… I would run a study and not a meta analysis. For only the fact that he examined 87 studies and could barely find 7 to use for his analysis. The bar for scientific publishing is in hell. But hey look at the audience.
Really? Ones about women vaping on opioids. Two of them were about dual users of cigarettes and ecigarettes. None of them came close to correlating with OP‘s statement.
would you like to summarize those seven studies with me and see if there’s any relationship in there?
Actually the stats say that only a fraction of people quit, but instead increase the nicotine content.
Do they?
"A total of 87 clinical trials were identified, of which only seven were related to smoking cessation through vaping as a form of treatment. "
Had to scrape the pubmed barrel pretty deep for that one.
Meta analysis is best done by Cochrane, and they see a slight to mild effect, but indicate huge bias in the CTs. Also the conflicts sections is three pages long as the number of MDs running these studies funded by Vape companies is hilarious.
Whack ass study alert. 7 studies used… just read the titles of the studies.
It’s a meta study, and 7 studies is more than sufficient to establish statistical significance. There’s also no issue with the study titles.
Would you like to pick which of those seven studies was most correlated and effective at proving OP point?
I gotta be honest with you chief if I was a scientist, trying to establish a point. And I had the choice between a meta-analysis and running an actual study…… I would run a study and not a meta analysis. For only the fact that he examined 87 studies and could barely find 7 to use for his analysis. The bar for scientific publishing is in hell. But hey look at the audience.
Really? Ones about women vaping on opioids. Two of them were about dual users of cigarettes and ecigarettes. None of them came close to correlating with OP‘s statement.
would you like to summarize those seven studies with me and see if there’s any relationship in there?
I already told you I’m no longer engaging with your exponential growth comment method. Fuck off.
But he concludes (one author) what we want to hear!
I just want to see someone present a study and not a meta analysis of the 10 worst studies they could find for once.