Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

And a happy ******* New YearFollow

#52 Jan 08 2015 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Doesn't mean that they're not absolutely correct though.
If you feel an op-ed on a fansite is credible, that's on you sweety.

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 9:43am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Jan 08 2015 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Really? find for "coffee" or "caffeine" on the page you linked provide no results. Can you perhaps quote the section where this is mentioned?

Sure, I could. Or. Just spit-balling here, you could read it.


You're the one who linked to the page Smash, not me. If you can't actually demonstrate that what you linked in any way supports the claim you were making, then that's equivalent to just admitting you were wrong.

Oh. But on the subject of the effectiveness of different methods of quitting Smoking, here's one of the sources I was talking about. Specifically, this is where the claim that e-cigs are 60% more effective comes from.

What's really interesting about this study isn't the e-cig versus Nicotine Replacement Therapy (over the counter patches and gums). That's really not surprising at all. But the comparison to non-assisted quitting (cold turkey) users is interesting. Users of e-cigs were 63% more likely to quit than NRT users and 61% more likely to quit than those using no aid. So while this study isn't specifically about comparing NRT users to cold turkey, it actually does contain data that indicates this comparison (arguably more accurately in fact due to the larger relative sample sizes). And the results in this study were that those who didn't use over the counter patches were more successful at quitting than those who did.

I just find that funny as heck. Don't you? Talk about a waste of money.

Edited, Jan 8th 2015 4:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jan 08 2015 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You're the one who linked to the page Smash, not me. If you can't actually demonstrate that what you linked in any way supports the claim you were making, then that's equivalent to just admitting you were wrong.

Or. Just a thought. Maybe. Maybe, you could read the study.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#55 Jan 08 2015 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
What's really interesting about this study isn't the e-cig versus Nicotine Replacement Therapy (over the counter patches and gums). That's really not surprising at all. But the comparison to non-assisted quitting (cold turkey) users is interesting. Users of e-cigs were 63% more likely to quit than NRT users and 61% more likely to quit than those using no aid. So while this study isn't specifically about comparing NRT users to cold turkey, it actually does contain data that indicates this comparison (arguably more accurately in fact due to the larger relative sample sizes). And the results in this study were that those who didn't use over the counter patches were more successful at quitting than those who did.

Nope. If you read the discussion, you'd see there's no indication here that NRT is less effective than no aid. You'd have to understand the statistical model, though. So I can see how you'd get to that conclusion.

Hey, have you thought about taking a stats course so you could understand how research works?

Anyway, that aside, I'm not sure what your point is in linking this study. That e-ciggs are an effective smoking cessation tool? They are. That they are more effective than other NRT? They aren't. The results here are interesting, but the exclusion of anyone also using behavioral therapy is a real problem. What the study indicates most likely is that people currently self selecting e-ciggs are more motivated to quit.

This is why double blind studies exist.

All double blind studies using traditional NRT and e-cigs show outcomes are essentially identical. Which is what I said previously. They also show more difficulty tapering and quitting e-ciggs than gum or patches. Nicotine is detrimental to one's health. more so than caffeine is also something I stated. Then I linked a study you didn't read that demonstrated that.

Now you've linked a study you didn't read that refutes absolutely nothing I've posted. Not. One. Word.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#56 Jan 09 2015 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Specifically, this is where the claim that e-cigs are 60% more effective comes from.
Measurements wrote:
The primary outcome was self-reported abstinence up to the time of the survey
So you've moved from a fansite op-ed to an online survey.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Jan 09 2015 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
****
5,492 posts
Some things never change. Good to see Smash and Gbaji still going at it....
#59 Jan 13 2015 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What's really interesting about this study isn't the e-cig versus Nicotine Replacement Therapy (over the counter patches and gums). That's really not surprising at all. But the comparison to non-assisted quitting (cold turkey) users is interesting. Users of e-cigs were 63% more likely to quit than NRT users and 61% more likely to quit than those using no aid. So while this study isn't specifically about comparing NRT users to cold turkey, it actually does contain data that indicates this comparison (arguably more accurately in fact due to the larger relative sample sizes). And the results in this study were that those who didn't use over the counter patches were more successful at quitting than those who did.

Nope. If you read the discussion, you'd see there's no indication here that NRT is less effective than no aid. You'd have to understand the statistical model, though. So I can see how you'd get to that conclusion.

Hey, have you thought about taking a stats course so you could understand how research works?


How about math? If A=(1/1.61)X and B=(1/1.63)X then A>B. This is not a subjective thing Smash. We know that the chance of an e-cig user quitting in this study is a constant value within the study itself. If that chance is 63% higher than the chance to quit with NRT and 61% higher than the chance to quit cold turkey, then we can absolutely say that the chance to quit cold turkey is greater than the chance to quit with NRT.

We could replace the phrase "statistical model" with "magic" and your counter claim would be as accurate. It's the kind of language people who know they're wrong use when they want to convince other people that something that is false is really true. "Oh. Well, the statistical model being used creates a variance in the results that you haven't accounted for". Um... What? No. It doesn't. Why not just say that the Heisenberg Compensator interacted with the Baryon Sweep Generators to cause a quantum continuum switch that affected the outcome. It's just as much babble. And just as much about you being wrong but hoping that other people wont notice.

Quote:
Anyway, that aside, I'm not sure what your point is in linking this study. That e-ciggs are an effective smoking cessation tool? They are. That they are more effective than other NRT? They aren't. The results here are interesting, but the exclusion of anyone also using behavioral therapy is a real problem. What the study indicates most likely is that people currently self selecting e-ciggs are more motivated to quit.


Um... As opposed to the people who self select over the counter NRT products? That's the point here. It's an apples to apples comparison of methods that an individual could choose to use, absent professional medical intervention (and a prescription) to try to quit smoking. Introducing those other elements would actually make the results less useful, not more. If you are an individual who smokes, and you want to know which method you can use by yourself to quit, this study tells you that e-cigs are the best way to go.

Which is... wait for it... useful information.

Quote:
This is why double blind studies exist.


What the heck does this have to do with anything? This is a real world study using real world people using real world methods to attempt to stop smoking. That's always going to be more accurate than any contrived studies you might come up with. Double blind study? Did you just rattle off random crap and hope this would make people agree with you?

Quote:
All double blind studies using traditional NRT and e-cigs show outcomes are essentially identical.


Yes. That e-cigs outperform NRT at the 3 month and 6 month time frame.

Quote:
They also show more difficulty tapering and quitting e-ciggs than gum or patches.


I'm trying to noodle out what you're actually saying. I'm assuming you aren't actually claiming that the fact that people who don't use e-cigs have a harder time stopping using e-cigs and are actually talking about using a product that provides them with nicotine. In which case, you're making a meaningless point. The gum and patch products are designed with a specific 6 month time frame for use. You basically either fail to stop smoking (and thus stop using the products) prior to the 6 month time frame, or you succeed at not smoking while using the products and then stop using them after 6 months because that's what the instructions tell you to do (or the prescription period if you're using a prescription product). Either way, the rate of people who stop using an NRT after 6 months is very high (nearly 100%). You can't compare this to a product that is designed to replace tobacco smoking long term (there's no assumption or requirement to taper the e-cig use over time). Not honestly anyway.

So that argument is meaningless in this context. What is meaningful is the relative odds of succeeding in stopping smoking *and* whether you resume smoking at some point. E-cigs are measurably better in the former and probably in the latter as well. They haven't actually been fully tested in this area because they're pretty new and long term studies of this sort generally aren't done (almost certainly because post 6 month success isn't generally tracked for NRT either, probably because of the horrible rates there as well).

Getting people "off e-cigs" is not a goal. Not when the alternative is often "resuming smoking".

Quote:
Nicotine is detrimental to one's health.


Everything is detrimental to one's health. Relative detriment is what matters. A choice between a product with a high probability that you will stop inhaling tobacco smoke for your lifetime, but will still expose you to nicotine versus one with a low probability that you will stop inhaling tobacco smoke for your lifetime, but if you happen to be one of the lucky ones you will also not be exposed to nicotine seems pretty darn easy to make. Doubly so for those who have tried patches and gums and have failed.


Quote:
more so than caffeine is also something I stated. Then I linked a study you didn't read that demonstrated that.


Yeah. You're wrong, but it's an irrelevant side point so I'm not going to bother expending effort proving it, especially given that it would require me proving a negative. Funny that you steadfastly refuse to quote the section of the linked page that contains the facts you claim are there.

Quote:
Now you've linked a study you didn't read that refutes absolutely nothing I've posted. Not. One. Word.


Except for most of the things you said, of course. Like that patches and gums are as effective as e-cigs at helping people quit smoking. You've said that several times now, and yet every single study I've come across has shown that e-cigs are more effective. I mean, I guess you can just keep stamping you feet and saying "no" over and over, but that doesn't change the actual facts here.

Edited, Jan 13th 2015 6:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Jan 13 2015 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess you can just keep stamping you feet and saying "no" over and over, but that doesn't change the actual facts here.
You keep thowing out facts like they mean something.






















Sound familiar?

Edited, Jan 13th 2015 10:02pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#61 Jan 14 2015 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I guess you can just keep stamping you feet and saying "no" over and over, but that doesn't change the actual facts here.
You keep thowing out facts like they mean something.

Sound familiar?


Yes. And while it makes a fun out of context quote (years later apparently), the point I was making then was that facts without analysis and/or comparison are useless. Saying "Only one out of ten people will be able to quit smoking using product A" suggests we should not use product A, right? But if one in 20 quit using all other products, then product A is the best choice. The initial fact, even if 100% correct, does not actually give us enough information to make a good decision.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Jan 15 2015 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
the point I was making then was that facts without analysis and/or comparison are useless.
So is using fansite op-eds and online surveys.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Jan 15 2015 at 9:13 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So is using fansite op-eds and online surveys.

No, no. Anything written down is of equal merit, and should be assumed to be relentlessly fact checked and updated to present evidence.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#64 Jan 15 2015 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
the point I was making then was that facts without analysis and/or comparison are useless.
So is using fansite op-eds and online surveys.


If the analysis and/or comparison takes into account the sources involved, then it's not (useless, that is).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Jan 15 2015 at 10:35 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the analysis and/or comparison takes into account the sources involved, then it's not (useless, that is).
No, they're still quite useless as factual sources.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Jan 16 2015 at 4:01 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the analysis and/or comparison takes into account the sources involved, then it's not (useless, that is).
No, they're still quite useless as factual sources.


And that is a fact!

The more you know
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#67 Jan 16 2015 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I found an op-ed that says the Illuminati casts spells on cigarettes, which is what really causes cancer and death.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Jan 16 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I found an op-ed that says the Illuminati casts spells on cigarettes, which is what really causes cancer and death.

Well there's a correlation between smoking and cancer, and that's a fact, so this is clearly correct. It took into account the data and did some analysis. Fruit of the fact tree is clearly also fact. Simple logix.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 338 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (338)