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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Amelia_RH @GidMK
Taking issue with an estimate (that could indeed be wrong) is one thing - but the fact is that if we consider the body of evidence that applies (which extends beyond ecig studies), 95% likely OVER estimates individ.risk. If that was your point, it was lost in a festival of nuance
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Putting a solid numerical figure on a hazy risk estimate like that is an extremely fraught task, and the idea that you can then take the number and use it as a given is, to me, simply bad science We don't say "seatbelts are 99% safer than the alternative", for example
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @Amelia_RH
Jim McDonald Retweeted Health Nerd
The harms of smoking are mostly specific to combustion, and that is the primary point that deniers deliberately ignore. "We just don't know enough" scares countless smokers from vaping. Half of them will die.https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1006407963538386944 …
Jim McDonald added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMKReplying to @Amelia_RHPutting a solid numerical figure on a hazy risk estimate like that is an extremely fraught task, and the idea that you can then take the number and use it as a given is, to me, simply bad science We don't say "seatbelts are 99% safer than the alternative", for example1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
We know that there is no combustion. That means no tar and no carbon monoxide. What are the other mechanisms of harm that could possibly put vaping even in the same ballpark as smoking? There aren't any.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.