CASAA Call to Action: In what may be described as either clarification or justification, Dr. Siegel has a new post dealing with his original scientfic study which he cancelled. I have covered this unfolding drama with two previous post. First, he was effectively “thrown under the bus” as I explained in this post. A few days later he cancelled his scientific study as I explained in this post. Todays post titled “Why a Randomized Behavioral Study is Essential to Understanding the Potential Benefits of Electronic Cigarettes” presents a balanced evaluation of two different scientific methadalagies and my hope is that the reader will reach their own conclusions. These two exstracts were very interesting (Bolded by me):
“The truth is that there are major advantages and disadvantages of both surveys and clinical trials to examine the potential benefits of electronic cigarettes. Both types of study designs have inherent biases which can produce results that are more “favorable” or “unfavorable.” This is why the methodology of published research needs to be examined so carefully. It is not so simple as to dismiss RCT evidence and accept survey evidence. One needs to consider the strengths and limitations inherent in both approaches. And at the end of the day, the only defensible approach, I believe, is that both types of studies are necessary, and we must carefully interpret and synthesize the findings from studies of multiple designs, using the totality of the evidence to make final judgments about the benefits of electronic cigarettes.”
“Finally, while it is true that the typical RCT is limited because it does not simulate the real-life situation where smokers can choose between different products, change products over time, and engage in social networks to support their vaping, the study we had proposed would have allowed for all of these things. We would have given smokers a wide range of products to choose from and allowed them to experiment with different products and make changes if they desired, and we would have referred them to a number of vaping web sites and support groups. In fact, we had decided to include a training and information session with an actual vaper as part of the study. This would still not have simulated the real-life situation exactly, but it would have significantly helped to make the study more meaningful by making it more similar to what happens in “real life.”
The “other opinion” by Dr. Carl V. Phillips is available for your reading pleasure.
I think it’s appropriate for me to share a story with you which illustrates an important point. A few years ago I learned that I had contracted a life threatening disease which would require treatment if I expected to live much longer. For over six months I conducted detailed research with the finest and most renowned Dr’s and institutions in the world. I read reports, medical journals, scientific study’s, and conducted nearly a dozen face to face interviews in an effort to determine what the best treatment would be for my life threatening disease. I received different opinions and advice. In some cases they conflicted with each other. In other cases it appeared to me that the advice I recived was more about ‘making money” than keeping me alive. It took me some time to reach a decision and thankfully my life threating disease has been cured as best that current medical tests can determine.
My takeaway is any study, diagnosis, tests, science, surveys, peer reviewed scientific articles is NEVER fact. It’s an opinion and their will always be the other opinion which contradicts. I really don’t care exactly “who” says it, how many initials they have in front of their name or behind it, how they are perceived by others, or the blind faith given by some. It’s all hog wash. Study both sides with this little factoid in mind and you might find issues easier to undertstand.
UPDATE: A very nice summary from another publication:
“What This Means: The ins and outs of who said what to whom and when won’t matter in the long run. But this tale illustrates an important point: it is a microcosm of a much larger debate, sometimes spilling over into angry argument, over what needs to be studied and how.”
“While some may fondly believe that conclusive research on e-cigarettes, smoking cessation and health already exists (whether positive or negative in its findings), the reality is that even the basic parameters of research are subject to disagreement. This is a principal reason why the debate over the science (which may be slightly distinct from the strictly scientific debate) will run for quite some time yet.”
Source for above: Planned e-cig usage study provokes battle of words | ECigIntelligence