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
-
-
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
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"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @GidMK
"Vaping looks to be safe"? They commissioned independent university researchers with established expertise in the area of tobacco and nicotine to conduct a systematic review- the kind at the top layers of that pyramid you shared. Based on that, they chose to use the number.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amelia_RH @GidMK
Disagreeing with that choice is valid. Questioning the overwhelming evidence reflected in that review and the many that have since followed it - some which quantify, some which don't - is not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amelia_RH
I mean, they specifically reference the Nutt paper as the source of the 95% claim, and more recently have said that it is not meant to be a solid figure but a teaching tool for, I imagine, precisely the reasons I mentioned in my thread
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Yeah- I mean I don't know if we are talking past each other or if I am too focused on something that wasn't the whole of your argument (I hear a lot of BS about vaping & that paper is used as an excuse to throw a lot of babies out with bathwater by opponents to the technologies)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amelia_RH @GidMK
It seemed that you were not making a general argument about how fraught quantification is in ANY policy context - but reducing the use of that figure dismiss an institutional endorsement of vaping in the UK - which came about through robust science work. If I misread, apologies
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
No worries! I did try to be very specific about the state of the evidence - i.e. vaping definitely less bad than smoking - but twitter is not always the best medium and wires can of course be crossed
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.