3 ms·

The report you linked does not explain the 95% number, and following their citations bottomed out in articles that don't contain that number either. I'd need to

by iak8god 10y ago

The report you linked does not explain the 95% number, and following their citations bottomed out in articles that don't contain that number either. I'd need to spend more time looking through those before I'd feel comfortable saying that no existence for the 95% harm reduction claim can be found in the tree of citations spinning out from the PHE report, but please be aware that as of now you have not provided evidence for that claim. I'd be pleased if you would, since it would probably save me a lot of time later.

jdietrich 10y ago
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456704/McNeill-Hajek_report_authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
- iak8god 10y ago
  Thanks, this is more clear and straightforward about where they got that number, though the relevant citation ends up being the same as in the longer document. The evidence cited in that summary is the study 'Estimating the Harms of Nicotine-Containing Products Using the MCDA Approach'[1]. If you read that paper, I guarantee you will find yourself much less confident in the 95% harm reduction claim. Briefly, here's the method they employed: * Convene a panel of "international experts" in a two day workshop. * Ask each participant to separately rate how harmful they believe each type of nicotine-containing product is, on a scale of 0 (no harm) - 100 (cigarettes). * Weight/average the scores and publish the results In case anyone is inclined to think that counts as "evidence", be aware that the authors of that study don't: "A limitation of this study is the lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria" They fail to mention in particular the lack of long-term evidence for some of the products, which have not been available long enough to properly measure. In any case, I am aware that vaping nicotine is much safer than combusting tobacco (though I think the latter is a lot yummier). However, I found this to be an interesting case study in how a report can pull out precise and scientific-looking numbers like 95% and trust that people for the most part will take that at face value without looking into the scientific validity of the claim. [1] http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220 http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220

by iak8god 10y ago

jdietrich 10y ago

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456704/McNeill-Hajek_report_authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

iak8god 10y ago
Thanks, this is more clear and straightforward about where they got that number, though the relevant citation ends up being the same as in the longer document. The evidence cited in that summary is the study 'Estimating the Harms of Nicotine-Containing Products Using the MCDA Approach'[1]. If you read that paper, I guarantee you will find yourself much less confident in the 95% harm reduction claim. Briefly, here's the method they employed: * Convene a panel of "international experts" in a two day workshop. * Ask each participant to separately rate how harmful they believe each type of nicotine-containing product is, on a scale of 0 (no harm) - 100 (cigarettes). * Weight/average the scores and publish the results In case anyone is inclined to think that counts as "evidence", be aware that the authors of that study don't: "A limitation of this study is the lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria" They fail to mention in particular the lack of long-term evidence for some of the products, which have not been available long enough to properly measure. In any case, I am aware that vaping nicotine is much safer than combusting tobacco (though I think the latter is a lot yummier). However, I found this to be an interesting case study in how a report can pull out precise and scientific-looking numbers like 95% and trust that people for the most part will take that at face value without looking into the scientific validity of the claim. [1] http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220 http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220