More specifically, they affirmed the Nutt estimate as the current best guess, given that there is little evidence to contradict it. Which means that their estimate is still largely based on the 95% figure
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @Amelia_RH
Fascinatingly, nowhere does anyone mention that the figure for benefit to the individual from the Nutt paper was actually 60%, not 95%. Given that PHE cite this directly as their source for the estimate, perhaps we should all be using the 60% figure instead?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
We should base estimates on the evidence that is available and applies. 95% figure aside - you do understand that it's not just studies of vaping that apply to the question of risk & we have an enormous amount of consensual science on nicotine and smoke that applies here, Right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Amelia_RH
My entire "smug" thread was on the 95% figure, it's well-established that non-smoke alternatives are likely less harmful that was ~literally~ my second tweet
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Amelia Howard Retweeted Health Nerd
And then you said this:https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1006320985300033536 …
Amelia Howard added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Amelia_RH @GidMK
Can you see how this might be confusing to some?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @GidMK
There are some unknowns to vaping. To suggest that these unknowns could plausibly manifest in the kind of disease burden of cigarettes - and to suggest that only time can provide an answer to this, just isn't true.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Amelia_RH
That's not what I was arguing and something that I specifically repudiated several times. I guess I could've added the repudiation on every tweet, but I always assume people will read the whole thing before attacking me
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
What irritated me about your rant was anyone who came upon it who didn't have a good grasp of the evidence or terrain of expertise could easily come away thinking that the science around relative risk is far less certain than it in fact is. The context of my frustration is this:pic.twitter.com/XZ3vrVhtc2
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Much like PHE's own use of the estimate, I can see where you're coming from. My frustration is that the 95% figure is taken as writ, when PHE themselves describe it as a "communication tool"
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
ok point taken there - and i will admit I don't know your audience, but you were repeating some arguments that came specifically from people who were rather put out when PHE contradicted them in 2014. I mean it's really unfair to reduce the review by McNeil to the Nutt study.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amelia_RH
But the figure itself, the one that has been repeated forever, came from the Nutt paper. PHE basically said "vaping looks to be safe, let's use this 95% figure because it's there and it's helpful"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.